Preserving the largest contiguous forest for Newton in perpetuity is essential. We must protect this diverse eco-system and the habitat it provides for birds, mammals, amphibians and insects. We must ensure our residents have access to the woods, rocky ledges and the vernal pool on these 17+ acres and can connect to the 88+ acres of forest to either side cared for by the City of Newton and Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.
I have been ably assisted in this action by the members of the Webster Woods Advisory Panel, led by Beth Wilkinson of the Newton Conservators, and with a lot of help from City Councilor Lisle Baker, Webster Woods neighbor and environmentalist Ken Kimmell who is Co-Chair of the Friends of Webster Woods, and Community Preservation Committee Vice Chair Dan Brody. Thanks also go to Solicitor Ouida Young and Chief Environmental Planner Jennifer Steel.
“Mayor Ruthanne Fuller’s decision to acquire Webster Woods will save a natural treasure. I am most grateful for the sustained work of the Executive Committee and the full Webster Woods Advisory Panel in laying the groundwork for the preservation of the woods,” Beth Wilkinson said.
While I remain open to achieving a mutually acceptable agreement with B.C., I have decided to initiate a process of acquiring the property’s 17+ acres of pristine woods through the City’s power of eminent domain. In the coming weeks and months, I will work with the Community Preservation Committee, the Conservation Commission, and the City Council to provide the necessary authority and funding to acquire the woods.
I have looked carefully at the cost to acquire Webster Woods and will be approaching the Community Preservation Committee for the funding as part of their open space funding reserve. Community Preservation Act funds come from our taxes and can be used only for land preservation, outdoor recreation facilities, historic preservation or affordable housing.
I want to thank all of you who have taken the time to share with me your deep concern that these woods be preserved for future generations. I ask for your continued support in the coming months as we look to secure the necessary funding.
We expect to formally move forward with a request to the Community Preservation Committee in the coming weeks. We will provide a lot more information and have plenty of opportunities for questions and comments. Details on the cost will also be forthcoming.
Information on Webster Woods can be found
here.
I’m very please to read this about WebsterWoods. But it is ironic that while our mayor is concerned about preserving this wonderful resource, she is happy to sacrifice parkland for a pet project that is a new community/athletic center masquerading as a Senior Center.
Wow, eminent domain on 17 acres. I am…surprised. And frankly, not ok with it.
I believe in property rights. I could see the city using eminent domain for Zervis (although, surprise surprise, they refused to do it for Cabot). But here, taking the land from a tax exempt entity, at what is sure to be a high cost, with no immediate threat of development…
So fiscally I don’t see how we afford this. Legally I’m not sure we can do it. And morally I don’t like it. Sometimes the ends do not justify the means.
And two points:
1) Would this type of purchase and cost be used if the woods were on the North side?
2) The timing of this after the NewCal rollout feels unfortunate at best.
Tell me the cost. Show me that BC isn’t going to tie us up in court for 20 years. And explain to me why our city govt should engage in a major property taking for a less than emergent public use.
Have at me.
And for folks pointing out the need to save the Webster Woods. Yep. I know. I’ve walked them. I like them. I know the site well.
Lots of roles for government to play in our lives. Be careful with this one. Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Fig nails it.
@Newtonville. Not so sure it is “Good intentions” Smacks to me that the Mayor is dealing with a major black eye over the NEWCal debacle and the timing of this announcement is interesting.
But I will stipulate that I have no trust in nor good will towards this Mayor so I am biased.
If the city wants to get land by eminent domain, why don’t they go that route to acquire land for a first class Senior Center? At last night’s Parks and Recs meeting we were told that was highly undesirable and essentially, if not iterally, off the table
Am I missing something or does the above announcement basically say that BC refuses to sell the property to Newton? I’m with Fig. I don’t see how this ends well.
I think this is a good idea, even if the timing feels forced because of the NewCAL controversy. Fig, I’m not sure use of the funds must be tied to “emergent public use” if you mean a use that is somehow pressured by time. So the question in my mind is whether this is a significant enough opportunity that it’s worth pursuing. On that front, I think the answer is yes, because we can be sure that BC would eventually take the land out of conservation use and put buildings and parking and the like there. I doubt that they bought the property to preserve it as is.
It will be interesting to see how a court would value the land for eminent domain purposes. BC spent $20 million for the entire 25-acre property, essentially establishing its market value, admittedly a few years ago. This 17 acres includes wetlands and rocky portions, so a court would probably value that portion at less than 17/25 of the $20 million. Eminent domain proceedings, by the way, don’t take very long. I’d guess 12 to 18 months from the time a complaint is filed.
Use of the CPA funds for this purpose is totally consistent with the purposes of that fund. Apparently there are more than $11 million available in that account, so the whole thing could be funded that way. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/73669 But that would be the largest single use of the CPA funds to date and wouldn’t leave much for other open space or recreational acquisitions or other authorized uses.
I have no knowledge of this deal. I do know that under some circumstances government bodies can take property by eminent domain with the full cooperation of the land owner. I have no idea if BC is down with this deal or fighting tooth and nail. I’m just pointing out that “eminent domain” doesn’t necessarily mean “law suit” in this case.
We camped in a family campground on Cape Cod for 30 years. Two years ago the state took the campground by eminent domain and made it into a state campground. There were a variety of legal and regulatory reasons why having the state take the property by eminent domain was the preferred option for the property owner, rather than a normal sale.
What does Mike Striar think?
Why are people equating playground grass to a thickly forested area? Both are important in their own right, but there’s very little similarity in the purpose they serve and in their ecological importance. Making speculations about the timing of the announcement is cheap demagogy. Anyone who has been seriously following the Webster Woods issue knows that it’s been a long time in the making.
Here is one resident letting out a big sigh of relief. Future generations will not care about BC’s property rights or the budget shortfalls the city faced in 2019, but they will wonder how we let Newton’s last swath of forest be consumed.
Paul, while I understand that MA was one of the few states following Kelo vs City of New London to NOT strengthen property rights in the wake of that decision, Kelo basically left the definition of public use to the states to determine. MA has not really done that, and its courts really haven’t weighed in on the issue since Kelo.
So let me play devil’s advocate for a bit, with no ill will towards any:
You say that it is a good taking, that it is for a public use. OK. May I ask why the city didn’t buy it when it was on the open market just a few years prior? Eminent Domain has clear cut uses for public purpose. I just didn’t realize buyer’s remorse was one of them. Can it also acquire the homes behind the current senior center? Because why not, right?
And since Kelo hasn’t really been touched from my recollection by MA courts, I’m wondering what our state courts are going to say about this, especially once BC decides to call our bluff and litigate this. So you’ve got our City lawyers, who are now arguing a complicated constitutional 5th Amendment court case. Do we hire outside counsel? That gets expensive, does it not? Or do we trust our lawyers to argue our case, through multiple appeals. All the way to the Supreme Court?
I seem to recall that BC has an excellent law school. And many excellent professors of law. I’m guessing they are have an good sized endowment as well. This isn’t a small homeowner begging for help from a non-profit property rights group. I’m curious where you came up with a 12 to 18 month window for a complaint to be resolved. Is that with the small homeowner who wants to move on with his/her life? Or a College that thinks in terms of long term plans and decades. When Kelo began, the City tried to take her land in 1997. It was decided by the Supreme Court in 2005. And that was the small homeowner in a nice pink house. Good luck with the college. The Cato Institute will write a lovely brief. It’s been waiting for 14 years to take on eminent domain.
I seem to recall that the Supreme Court has changed quite a bit since 2005 too. Thomas dissented back in 2005. I’m pretty sure the current court would agree with him. So why wouldn’t BC fight this all the way. You got a non-emergent public use. You’ve got a prior sale and opportunity to acquire 2 years earlier. And the public use is basically preserving private woods as a public park, vs. a tax exempt use by one of the best colleges in the Country.
I think you’ve got a City relying on precedent in a time of legal upheaval, a well-heeled plaintiff, a weak case, and city that may not want to spend millions to litigate.
To quote Paul Newman: “If you’re playing a poker game and you look around the table and and can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.” The City and BC are at the table Paul. All I’m saying is that I think I know who the sucker is.
As for the valuation, BC will point out that it was a sweetheart sale to another tax exempt. I think the open market is at least 20 million and FMV isn’t as simple as making a portion. Highest use buyer, no?
Finally, the use of the full amount of the CPA funds shows the lie of affordable housing in our fair city. We are sitting on 10 million or more, but we can’t fund significant affordable housing projects because it would exhaust the fund. But hey, a Newton Center forest is at risk, so let’s just spend it all.
You want the forest? Use an override. Maybe combine it with NewCal. And buy it. Don’t steal it.
-Fig
And again, I love the idea of preserving the forest. I especially loved it when the city could have done it 2 years ago.
But Newtoner, you think you have the forest. You don’t. Perhaps you will, perhaps BC wants to trade half the land, or all of it. Or not.
I think it is equally likely that we’ll be enjoying coffee on the BC campus and park 20 years from now on that site. Owned by BC.
We’ll see if BC wants to fight, and we’ll see if the City wants to spend. If they both do, that’s a very interesting legal case. I look forward to reading the brief, whenever it concludes.
And no ill will towards Paul. (I shouldn’t have addressed my rant towards him). (sorry Paul)
The announcement doesn’t indicate if this is a friendly eminent domain or a less than friendly one. I’m sure we’ll receive clarification on that very soon, but it does state that the city “remains open to a mutually acceptable agreement with BC”.
All excellent points, Fig. I’m hoping that the folks in City Hall have thought it through clearly and rigorously and come to a different conclusion from yours–and that this isn’t just a step to get the bad news of NewCAL off the front page.
The one point I would facetiously strongly disagree with is that BC would use professors from their law school. Universities _never_ remember to consult with their own expert faculty when it comes to help with business or administrative matters: It’s their own internal gown versus town prejudice!
I, too, wondered why Newton didn’t make the purchase when the site became available. I can imagine all kinds of creative approaches that might have been possible. I wonder how hard they tried at the time. But I do think that these kinds of resources seldom come along and that they are worth saving from development.
But since you got me started, let me now turn to other uses of CPA funds and briefly to the state of the playing fields in the city. In a word, they are pathetic. I wonder if anyone has thought about using CPA funds to rebuild and restore them.
This is a very blatant case of NIMBY by the Mayor…why? because
Webster Woods are literally in her backyard. as the area borders Suffolk Road where she lives…duh…..Maria Kreeft
No ill will taken, Fig!
Make a land trade with BC and try to avoid a pitched legal battle. Give them the equivalent of land near their main campus. Carve up Newton Commonwealth course and swap the equivalent acreage for all of the former Mishkin Tefila land (25 acres). What remains of the golf course could be used at the city’s discretion (parkland, affordable housing, etc…).
Paul, I think the CPA committee has tried very hard to spread the money around. Historic Preservation, Open Space, affordable housing, etc.
As for the BC law professors, Ha! I didn’t realize that.
I also think that until recently you couldn’t use it for playing fields. I recall that changing.
Jane, I agree we need more details. Perhaps BC and the Mayor have an agreement for some of the land.
Ok, good night all.
@Tim: I have no idea if what you’re proposing is even remotely possible, but I’m pretty certain BC would be happier with land adjacent to the main campus.
The answer is quite simple:
1. IN ACQUIRING THE WOODS & TEMPLE, USE THE TEMPLE FOR THE NewCAL SENIOR CENTER.
2. USE THE ALBEMARLE-NewCAL MONEY FOR ACQUIRING WEBSTER WOODS & TEMPLE.
I have no idea of the extent to which an eminent domain challenge would rely on Kelo. That being said, Kelo seems like a very fragile Supreme Court decision. I agree with a lot of what Fig is saying. Forget Cato. The Pacific Legal Foundation and the Institute for Justice are geared up to take a Kelo challenge all the way. Pacific Legal is on a roll with a couple of recent 9-0 Supreme Court victories.
Kelo case has no bearing on Webster Woods eminent domain whatsoever.
What made Kelo controversial was that the city acquired the property to then be conveyed for a private large scale development deemed desirable for the city.
In Newton, the land is being acquired for non-private non-commercial park and preservation purposes.
Jim, Kelo talked about a lot more than just the private nature of the beneficiary of the taking. It set forth the whole discussion of public use and public benefit.
Could Newton also take BCs main campus for use as a park? Could Cambridge take Harvard Yard?
Mishka Tefila purchased the land from the MDC against the wishes of the Newton aldermen way back when. One reason given is because developing the area would be cost prohibitive due to ledges. And then Mishka sold it to BC for $20 million. Newton wouldn’t have coughed up to buy it then – why should the city pay to buy another building?
The value to the city and to neighborhood is the chunk of land sitting right in the center of Webster Woods, land which would be cost prohibitive to develop and which BC has no use for.
Eminent domain is the last resort here, and it is being used appropriately. It was public (state) land sold to a private entity, and now through ED it is being returned to the public where it should have been to begin with had the MDC not sold out for cheap.
The ONLY landmark, controversial and precedential aspect of Kelo WAS that the land was taken by the governmental entity from a private party in condemnation by eminent domain and then not used by a governmental entity and/or for public purpose, but rather conveyed to a developer for private development. The issue WAS taking the private property from a private owner and conveying to another private owner.
For that reason, the court discussed and analyzed whether, in that particular case, such taking could be a “public use” or “public benefit”, the city maintaining that the new intended use of that private property would benefit the public and the city.
Certainly Newton taking for public park and/or preservation purposes is beyond any question as to its legality. Kelo would have no prohibitive bearing there.
Your raising of hypotheticals (BC main campus or Harvard) would not pertain because, firstly, it would be completely cost prohibitive and, secondly, completely unreasonable to show need or benefit (by transferring from a University to a City in those cases).
I see that you like to engage in tedious discussion with tedious inquiries for some abstract point. Courts restrict their findings based on the facts at hand. If you want to show me an ACTUAL fact situation or case similar to a Harvard Yard or Main BC Campus, then there can ensue some discussion.
By the way, the right of eminent domain does not foreclose BC from challenging in Court the amount of compensation in the event Newton and BC are unable to reach agreement on price.
I am so confused. Is she trying to hide the fact that MASS development is happening on Needham Street, Riverside, Washington Street and other places? But in her neighborhood she is preserving space that will never be used for MASS development. She is stating that in my neighborhood, I want open space and less density. However, the rest of Newton can have 6-10 story buildings with much traffic.
I am very disappointed. Had this been Nonantum would she have proposed this?
I love open space, but this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
And, while Mishkan is a building and could be converted to a NEWCAL, it still doesn’t have public transportation available.
While I love the idea of purchasing and preserving land, the timing stinks (hey, the teachers still don’t have a contract and the councilors gave themselves a raise).
The announcement describes acquiring the wooded area outlined in blue on the map – NOT the former temple building and parking lot.
With due respect, commenters equating Webster Woods to the other large projects are misguided. None of those projects come at the expense of pristine forest. In fact, all of them use unattractive large lots without a single tree. Development in Webster Woods will wreak havoc on the largest patch of forest in Newton. Please study the issue before making your ridiculous NIBMY accusations.
As noted above, I appreciate the mayor’s commitment to preservation of open space in this example; but where is that commitment with regard to the NewCAL project? It’s missing.
@NewtonMom – Actually the mayor’s end of Newton already has the most intense development in the city and the traffic that goes with it -The Street, the new Wegmans complex, the Chestnut Hill Mall, the high rise Towers of Chestnut Hill (the only 16 story apartment buildings in the city), etc.
Newtoner – As a very long time poster, I come here less and less often, in part because reading anonymous posters use words such as yours to describe their neighbors’ opinions is just tiresome and an ongoing problem. No one’s opinion is “ridiculous” and calling people NIMBYs isn’t contributing anything constructive to the conversation. Post with your real name and you have some credibility, and you’d probably find that you tone down your language.
Jerry,
You are correct, but I believe she purchased her house AFTER the mall and the Towers were built. Wegman’s exists on Route 9 where another mall once stood.
But, she is ready to develop Riverside at the expense of the small, modest homes off of Grove Street.
She is also ready to develop PARKS that are used by the residents for a massive building.
She is keeping something in her neck of the woods pristine. Gath pool needs a renovation, but not a giant building.
@Jerry: but does her property immediately abut them? From my observation, Chestnut Hill properties are some of the most buffered by green space in the city. Contrast that to Rick Frank living so close to the Pike. Apples and oranges.
Discussions conflating real estate developments, NewCAL, and Webster Woods are not helpful and are derails intended to smear the Mayor in however way they can.
C’mon, Jerry. We’re talking about the wealthiest, most privileged part of the city having its open space preserved at the same time that the largest park on the northside is slated to have a very large building placed on it. I live on the southside and I get the issue NewtonMom raises.
@Jane Frantz, NIMBY accusations are appropriate considering that NewtonMom leveled it at the Mayor accusing her of essentially self-serving and benefitting “her” neighborhood (reverse NIMBY if you will)
I attended meetings on Webster Woods. This process started during Mayor Setti Warren’s time, and I was with the Friends of Webster Woods with my son when he toured the Woods.
@Nelson: what if she’s asked for it? There’s a saying: “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen”.
My concerns are not about protecting the Mayor, she’s a full grown adult and can handle herself just fine.
It’s about ridiculous accusations that have nothing to do with Webster Woods, and anonymous posters who know virtually nothing about it posting ignorant comments out of vitriol.
There is SO much in this thread worthy of comment! So, picking only one aspect is tough …
So, I will start here. NOT CONFLATING these topics IS THE PROBLEM. Put another way – WHAT IS THE PLAN ?
Taken individually some of these things make more or less sense. When you list them together and consider them an action plan, however, they’re less a cohesive strategy as a hairball of conflicting priorities.
Why buy 17+ acres of land with CPC funds (?) and NOT consider using those same funds to improve city parklands? What about using them to free up funds to fix / replace the Gath pool instead of Frankenstein-ing the NewCAL and pool into one $25MM project?
Why NOT consider using [only] 2 acres of the Webster wood purchase for the NewCAL site? That would at least bring the facility closer to the center of town and locate it on a road that is better suited to the additional traffic [vs. Albemarle] – without sacrificing an already existing Park??
I have said this before. We are better than this. We have to DO better than this.
– J Oliver
Nelson, my comments are not anonymous and are complimentary with regard to this transaction. It is not vitriolic to point out a comparison with the administration’s approach to open space issues for NewCAL.
Everyone take a deep breath now. Please.
I fully get that folks are passionate about preserving the woods. I’m fine using a piece of CPA funds for it. My main concerns are eminent domain use and how it is going to be paid for. Using our entire CPA reserve for this is unfair to the rest of the city.
Again, similar to NewCal, if we want nice things, let’s pay for them. Have an override for NewCal, Webster Woods, and major investment in streets. I’d also support settling the various contracts in that override. Or we should live within our means, and realize that makes letting some of these opportunities go by.
And Nelson, you seem to know a lot about this particular issue. Has eminent domain always been an option? Do you know how the negotiations went with BC?
If you don’t know either answer, you are pretty much in the same boat as us. Trying to figure out how, what, where, when why. Don’t be mad when we ask those questions and that we aren’t a sole issue poster.
And Jane, keep posting and ignore the folks who disagree with you anonymously if you want. You are an important voice, even if I disagree with you from time to time.
@Fignewtoville: pigs fly again! I actually agree with 99% of your post.
A well-run municipality ought to be able to do multiple things at the same time. In Newton that means, among other important things — negotiating appropriate contracts with our unions, deliberating about the location and feasibility for a new senior center and trying to preserve the largest contiguous forest for Newton in perpetuity — at the same time.
Also, just so those who may be confused won’t be: CPA dollars, which are the proposed source of funds for Webster Woods, can’t be used to pay teachers, cover operating costs, mow lawns, etc. They can be used for affordable housing (and hopefully will be if the West Newton Armory is determined to be able to move forward) and historic preservation. It’s appropriate to deliberate if Webster Woods is a good use, but seems to me preserving the largest contiguous forest for Newton in perpetuity, is a great use.
Finally, I’ve stayed out of the NewCAL fray but must say it baffles me how locating this facility on one’s “side of towm” it seen as a negative.
We’re talking about building a community center with pool, gym and other amenities — not an incinerator, slaughter house or DPW yard.
Why wouldn’t you want to live close by so you and your neighbors can take full advantage of it?
@Paul Levy, my comment was not directed towards you, rather @NewtonMom and other anon posters. So my apologies if you felt it was directed at you. NewCAL is a separate issue that deserves its own discussion because the circumstances surrounding it are so different from Webster Woods. There were/are plenty of community meetings about NewCAL, and there were/are plenty of meetings about Webster Woods as well. It’s not like the Mayor just unilaterally said “we’re using money from Community Preservation to buy Webster Woods” (or land for NewCAL or take private land via eminent domain) and that was that. There was a lot of lobbying by Friends of Webster Woods and others to get to where we are today with Webster Woods.
Webster Woods should stay as it is (see the blue outline in the map). As others have pointed out, it is ONLY the undeveloped land being considered for takeover by eminent domain. The value of this land is much less than the developed area (where the building and parking lot sit) because it is so hard to develop, keeping in mind Boston College could very well develop the woods and essentially rip out the heart of Webster Woods. And I mean that almost literally as BC’s land would carve out the woods and make it a big U.
Paul Levy said: “It is not vitriolic to point out a comparison with the administration’s approach to open space issues for NewCAL.”
It’s true, but Newton civic debate does have a habit of conflating issues in a way that makes solving any of them harder.
Yes, Webster Woods, NewCAL on parkland, and Gath pool improvements are all Parks and Rec. But they all have complex history, they all have specific constituencies, and they all have their own time frames for action. Not sure you can expect consistency in the details of how they are handled.
In other words, as far as arguments against NewCAL or its process, I think consistency compared to Webster Woods is one of the weaker ones.
As for commonalities, as Fig has said, these projects all cost money and they all demand robust public process to build consensus. Newton could do with some more consistency in these aspects.
Greg, a prudent course would be to scale down the NewCAL Athletic & Community Center
to an actual Senior Center, and direct the money saved to acquisition of Webster Woods.
@fignewtonville, as I understand it, BC has discussed little to nothing about Webster Woods with the city. I think they have been approached several times by the city and their response is “no comment.” My feeling, and I can wrong here, is that they are waiting to see if anything of substance happens from the city in which case they will respond. I sense that this is so they can maintain as much leverage as possible in negotiations with the city re: Webster Woods.
Here are some facts about Webster Woods which may be helpful. (Let me disclose at the outset that I support the Mayor’s initiative and serve as a member of her Webster Woods Advisory Committee. My apologies for the length of what follows but there’s much to clarify.)
1. Webster Woods was originally part of 38 acres of land given by the Webster family in 1916 to the Commonwealth, and the Metropolitan District Commission (now merged into the state Department of Conservation and Recreation) ultimately held title. In 1954 the MDC sold the 20 plus acres to the Temple. More recently, the Temple sold the land, then identified on Newton Assessors maps as “300 Hammond Pond Parkway” to Boston College.
2. A look at the map at the top of this post will show 300 Hammond Pond Parkway is surrounded by public open space as well as across the Parkway. It is therefore an in-holding whose ultimate use will affect the public open lands around it.
3. The City has used eminent domain to acquire land for open space several times in the past, the most recent example being the expanded field near the bathhouse at Crystal Lake. The City has also used eminent domain in 1968 and 1979 to acquire open land on the east side of Hammond Pond Parkway which is now part of the Webster Conservation area.
4. Webster Woods is crossed by trails long used by the Newton citizens. Despite its proximity to a major highway and the largest shopping areas in Newton, the land is unusually quiet, as well as contains a vernal pool and trees long untouched by development.
5. Because of the public interest in this land, the Newton Open Space Plan several years ago identified the Temple “woods, ponds, and sensitive habitat” as important to preserve.
6. On October 5, 2015, the Board of Aldermen (before being renamed the City Council) unanimously passed a resolution requesting that “Mayor work to preserve the recreation and conservation character of 300 Hammond Pond Parkway.”
7. The funding under the Community Preservation Act is can be used for open space among other uses. For long term open space the Community Preservation Committee, which is the body of citizens charged in the first instance, has balanced open space with other uses of the funds for affordable housing, historic preservation and recreation. When the open space at Kessler Woods was acquired by the City using CPA funds, most of the funds were bonded, recognizing that the acquisition of open space is of long term value.
8. The City Council will need to respond to the Mayor’s initiative to vote both an acquisition by eminent domain of Webster Woods and to appropriate any funds recommended to do so by the CPC.
9. When acquired, Webster Woods would likely be managed by the Newton Conservation Commission which is now responsible for the other parts of the Webster Conservation area nearby.
I am sure this conversation will continue but I applaud the Mayor for working to secure the last major piece of open land in Newton and respond to the prior Aldermanic Resolution (which I recall that she herself voted for when serving as an Alderman).
As someone who has served in public life in Newton for almost 36 years, I can say that rarely do we have the chance to leave such a positive environmental legacy for future citizens. I therefore urge us to acquire Webster Woods as the Mayor has requested.
– Councilor Lisle Baker
@Greg Reibman
If your comment about not wanting NewCAL on ‘my side of town’ is directed toward me, read my rationale below. If not intended for me, then nevermind 🙂
Lets start with the City wanting to repurpose park land to accommodate NewCAL. Their committee came up with 6 options – all of them Newton parks. The development will require 2-2.5 acres of land to drop in a 37,000 sq ft. 3-story monstronisty. Why rob Peter to pay Paul? Newton has – for the most part – a good thing going with our park land. WHY consider reducing Newton’s existing recreation space for any reason?
As for which side of town … the committee itself listed criteria for choosing a site that it be central to Newton so everyone can utilize. Around a village center, close to public transportation. Easy access by car (including parking) and by foot. With nearby amenities and other senior services.
Albemarle, along with most of Newton’s parks, fail to meet all or most of these criteria.
That is why I oppose the site for NewCAL. I do not oppose NewCAL itself.
Again, I know we can do better.
@John Oliver: My comment was not directed at you or anyone in specific or intended as an endorsement of Albemarle in specific. It was directed at anyone who has argued that locating a community center on Newton’s north side is bad for the people who live on the north side.
@Jim: No we should not “direct” money that would be used for NewCAL to buy Webster Woods. Webster Woods should be paid for using CPA dollars. They’re different buckets of money. You might want to take a few minutes to educate yourself about the difference.
Here’s a little secret about Village 14… Everybody in the Newton power structure reads it.
It’s obvious why the Mayor has announced her decision about Webster Woods now. She’s taken a lot of heat over NewCal, and needs a big win. She’s also read the recent criticism on this blog about the City’s failure to acquire Webster Woods, and knows that eminent domain can give her the win she wants.
@Mayor Fuller– Please don’t settle for one win when you can get two for the price of one. Be bold! Take the entire property by eminent domain. Use and improve the existing structure for NewCal. Permanently preserve Webster Woods. This will prove to be a tremendous resource for Newton, that will cost the taxpayers less money than tackling both NewCal and Webster Woods separately.
Thanks to Lisle for (as usual) adding helpful information and institutional memory to the discussion.
Greg, while there have been a few comments with regard to NewCAL about “dumping” on the north side of town, most of the comments I’ve heard from residents in that area have centered on difficulties with traffic and transportation, removal of existing recreation facilities at the designated site, and a process that seems at variance with the standards that are supposed to be applied by the Parks and Recreation Commission in repurposing park land.
That’s your idea of a secret?
@Paul: Agreed. Site specific concerns, transportation challenges, etc. are understandable. The comments I’ve read here and elsewhere, suggesting that this is being dumped on north side residents — as if they were talking about methadone clinic, not a community center — are confounding.
@Councilor Baker: Thank you for the detailed post. Knowing that the city council is likely on board with this acquisition makes me more optimistic about saving the woods.
Councilor Baker:
Very much agree with Newtoner about your helpful post.
I think to address Councilor Baker’s points on prior uses of eminent domain, those prior uses were relatively small, no? Here you are basically taking a potential campus away from BC, that they bargained for and bought. It feels different.
Leaving BC with just the buildings and built environment completely changes the purchase in my view. They thought they were acquiring a large site for a potential campus. Now they aren’t. So the value being “less” due to the vernal pool and the ledges doesn’t make sense to me. You are reducing value of the other space as well. And considering we built Newton North over a creek, I’m sure they could build over the pool…
More of a reason to acquire it I guess. But let’s not minimize value for the entity losing the site.
And the cost of this is a big issue as well. We don’t know what the FMV appraisal will state. We don’t know if BC will challenge, we don’t know potential legal. Etc, etc.
Greg, money is fungible.
Moreover, I’m not maintaining that CPA funds not appropriately be used for Webster Woods, merely that additional funds, otherwise directed to a massive NewCAL Athletic & Community Center can be added to the CPA funding of Webster Woods, especially if Boston College’s demands cannot be met (without litigation) and/or the synagogue is used for a Senior Center. It’s already more than clear that Newton seniors prefer just a new/larger Senior Center, not an all purpose all ages Athletic/Community Complex.
Jim: CPA funds are not fungable. State law and all. But I’m going to stop responding to you on this point, so have a good day.
Greg-The people who oppose putting NewCAL at Albemarle have their reasons-Paul efficiently expressed them. If you think it’s such a great asset to have nearby, I don’t understand why you haven’t advocated for having it placed on the southside.
You and councilor Lipof are both southside leaders and think this is a great asset, yet you both go silent about the possibility of placing it on the southside. At least Paul Levy has been consistent in his opposition to the expanded community center being placed on any green space in the city. Comparing a basketball court in a park to a 38,000 sf building is highly questionable at the very least.
Fig-no one directed anything to me on this thread. My comment was about the use of disparaging language that anonymous posters often resort to.
As for using eminent domain as a tool to claim WW: unless it’s a friendly taking, it could be a fairly loaded issue. A lot of people object to the concept as a matter of course. The city should go back to BC and try to work out an agreement.
@Jane: I do not see myself as a “southside leader.” In my day job, I advocate for the economic and cultural vitality of the entire city and region. As a private citizen, I’d be delighted to have it close to my home.
Fig, I assure you Newton’s acquisition of Webster Woods from BC for public park and/or conservation purposes passes legal muster in terms of the right of eminent domain. (This is far from a Kelo case.)
Having said that, BC does retain the right to challenge Newton in terms of the compensation it would receive and how calculated.
“The Massachusetts Community Preservation Act (CPA) provides local and state funds for affordable housing, historic resources, open space and recreation land.”
“The Act also specifies the types of work or activities that may be funded for each resource, to ensure that “community preservation funds [do] not replace existing operating funds, only augment them.” For example, the CPA may not be used to fund routine maintenance.”
Summary here: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/cpa/default.asp
Jim, my argument is only partially based on Kelo. I’m far from an eminent domain expert, but I know enough to be dangerous I guess. Taking an entire campus site from a college is going to open up public benefit questions in my mind, especially since the city did not acquire it 2 years earlier on the open market.
And from a purely practical perspective, Newton and BC need to live together. This doesn’t exactly scream partnership.
I never said it wan’t a proper use of CPA btw, my issue is that it would completely exhaust the CPA pool of funds. Councilman Baker mentioned it could be bonded over. I’d be interested in that and those costs.
Greg, if you read my full comment, you’ll see I was referring to NewCAL funds being saved being directed to Webster Woods, not that Webster Woods CPA funds be redirected to NewCAL.
You have a nice day as well.
Fig, I was discussing the legal rights. Beyond that, yes you are certainly correct that public relations problems could arise as well as sufficient money for compensation problems (as I pointed out).
@Greg,
I’ve never used the pool, but my kids and my wife have. My wife points out there’s a big difference between an indoor pool and an outdoor pool (even with a bubble).
The pool as it is (remaining outdoors) with the sun canopy is a very different experience than an indoor pool, which is not a place to “hang out”. The “whole experience” of the outdoor recreation is more informal. My son points out to me that they used to hang out and play basketball, no need to “sign in”, and no adults around, etc. I recall my youth doing the same thing.
The idea of a community center is more akin to the YMCA.
Imagine, if you will, if the playground was put indoors. It would be a different experience (not to mention noisier).
I think what’s missing here is an understanding of the complete experience – the difference between the informal “playground” feel of the outdoor basketball courts, where my son could just hear a bouncing ball and see if there were friends there, likewise the pool, and the idea of an enclosed space. It’s very different, and not an equivalent experience.
So, regardless of the loss of any greenspace, it’s a loss of the “village ch……..” oops I won’t use that word.
My (grown) son tells me, in the summertime he wouldn’t go hang at an indoor court. And in the winter they used to use the Y anyways. So it’s duplicating a winter resource that’s already available.
Provide discounts for seniors to use the Y (or JCC) and build a smaller senior center, leave the pool and the courts outside.
Ah but Rick, you’re looking to engage in a discussion about the merits of this project at this location. I’ll pass. I’ll leave that debate to others.
My only point is: if something does get built, why wouldn’t you want it built close to your home?
I’m an Albmarle pool ex-pat: Used to swim there all the time when we lived in West Newton. When we moved to the Highlands, Crystal Lake became our primary destination. If someone wants to build a spiffy new community pool near my home, please let me know what day they put the pool passes onsale.
Also, For us tennis players, many of us look forward to spring where we can play outside, especially on clay courts. Or grass courts if you’re lucky to have access to them. It’s a lot different than playing indoors.
And when the weather’s nice, much more pleasant.
Sure, indoor courts are nice because you can play even if it’s raining. But that’s not the same as kids “hanging” by the pool.
People are looking at this trough adult eyes – swimming laps, etc. Not like teenagers. And when I walk by the pool on a nice summer day I see a lot of kids jumping and hanging out. They’re not interested in swimming laps rain or shine to stay in shape.
BC pays $0 in property taxes and gets a free ride from Newton. If last week’s home game against Kansas was any indication, BC apparently owns Hammond Pond Parkway too, because they use it for a parking lot. Which is only one reason the City of Newton should be getting a $urcharge for every football ticket sold… but I digress.
This is not the moral equivalent of taking land from tax paying homeowners. There is clear benefit to the City acquiring the entire property, including structures. BC was aware of the high level of community interest in Webster Woods when they bought it. They knew an eventual taking was a possibility.
The City should avoid the mistake it made in defending its 40B position, by hiring outside counsel to handle this case. In most eminent domain cases there are tax benefits to a negotiated taking. But since BC pays no taxes, they don’t have much incentive to negotiate for anything other than the highest possible price.
While the price they paid for the property is some indication of value, a professional appraisal of fair market value may prove substantially lower. Use of the property is heavily restricted, and the potential buyer pool almost non-existent. Just because BC overpaid for the property doesn’t mean that price reflects true market value. Therein lies the City’s leverage to make this a very quick process.
Doesn’t BC make a decently large PILOT payment? I think they also give around $100k to the schools every year.
I could be wrong.
Mike:
Is the use of the property heavily restricted? I didn’t know that. Conservation easement? Deed restricted? Or restricted due to the natural formations?
Lots of difference in those categories.
Greg – I honestly don’t think anyone is objecting to a senior center – or even a larger sports complex – on the North side. They’re objecting to the impact at this location, Albemarle – the loss of the outdoor courts, the loss of a true outdoor pool, loss of open space, more traffic in a small location with already difficult traffic and parking, etc. Anyone would welcome it near their home WITHOUT those issues.
And on another front – From the Globe:
“The college will oppose the decision, Boston College spokesman Jack Dunn said in a statement Thursday.
“We are disappointed that Mayor Fuller has made this unfortunate decision, which we intend to oppose to the fullest extent possible using all legal avenues,” Dunn said.””
@Patrick – BC has consistently been one of the lowest paying – if not the absolute lowest – colleges/universities in the Boston area when comparing PILOT payments made with the amounts requested by the cities (which are generally themselves only a fraction of what the taxes would be for a commercial entity at the same site). They paid Newton something like $130K in a municipal services agreement last year, and that was it.
In a more subjective sense, they’ve also been pretty smug and/or cavalier in dismissing any objections or responding to any press inquiries on the issue. I say this as someone with a BC grad degree who had a great experience with the program and school: they’re kind of jerks over the PILOT payments, even relative to their peers within Boston.
[This is not an endorsement of anything in the WW debate, which I am still thinking about, just a response to something that I happened to know offhand!]
I haven’t read all posts so please excuse the question if it has already been answered…
wasnt there an eminent domain taking or issue when David Cohen was Mayor?
@ Jane Frantz
It feels to me after reading the article in the Globe that this may not be entirely friendly or welcome transaction as viewed by the BC side.
I feel as you do that some parts of Chestnut Hill,
minus RT 9 obviously, have been “preserved” very effectively over the years. The mayor does live in CH, it would be in her interest to protect her neighborhood.
The Mayor mantra seems to be go big
or go home. There is a lot on her/our plate. I understand the desire to protect Webster Woods, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with doing it this way…,
BC has already completed constructing a road salt storage facility in the rear parking lot which is very close Bare Pond in Webster Woods: https://newtonconservators.org/boston-college-to-store-road-salt-in-webster-woods/
Some of their own students are studying the effects of the salt on Bare Pond (page 3): https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/offices/sustainability/pdf/EnvEagleNewsletterMar2019.pdf
They have taken steps to mitigate contamination, but we’ll have to wait and see if they are truly effective or not. I’m unaware of any concessions the City was able to extract from BC, like perhaps testing/monitoring in perpetuity while the storage facility is in use.
The City and others were aware of this but had no means of pushing back against it. So I take it as a big fat middle finger from BC to concerned citizens.
Disgusted at how the City treats the Northside differently. No way the City spends millions to save green space over here.
@Greg
Re: NewCAL- we don’t want our greenspace sacrificed for the benefit of the City. It’s just another example of North being treated differently. Albemarle doesn’t even fit the stated criteria suggested for a good location. Southside wouldn’t be asked to sacrifice their green space.
Getting absolutely sick of the disparate treatment.
Fuller needs to go.
@Mike Striar,
My thoughts exactly. Huge properties of the main campus and the law school campus – hundreds of acres – and NO taxes paid. The shuttle bus runs back and forth all day and night, uses our roads, and only students can use it. First the nonprofit Mishkan Tefila, now BC. We need to have ownership and…
…IF some of the land is used for tastefully designed housing with affordable housing (close to Route 9 bus routes, close to Chestnut Hill T station) and compliant with the building standards are netZero, as set out in the Citizens’ Climate Action Plan, THEN it will be a good move for Newton and for the Earth.
We could even have that gigantic parking lot go beneath ground, to eliminate that heat island, and build a park over it, ground level, as have forward-thinking and creative developments done in Brookline. Too bad we was robbed when “The Street” built out to the edge of the pond. It used to be such a lovely place to walk…
So, before everybody gets a permanent erection, eminent domain is only the first step. The second step is determining just compensation. And I gotta say, the City’s appraisal of this property is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY below what it is probably worth.
The trial of this matter will be about the value of the property. The city values it at slightly over $2 million. That is way below the price BC purchased this property for. Going out on a limb here, but the fair market value is gonna be a lot more than that. There is no comparable property in the city, and I suspect that BC will get an appraisal that is closer to the purchase price.
Just my two cents. Times tens of millions.
@Ted, the appraisal only covers the blue. It is low in part because it is woodland that isn’t easily developed (otherwise I imagine BC would have started on it already and not spent money converting the rear parking lot to a salt storage facility).
The cost to acquire was within the realm of possibility, BC wasn’t interested in selling the Webster Woods parcel to the city, and hence the move to eminent domain.
@Paul, you are welcome to attend community meeting about NewCAL. Below is an email I received about it :
In the coming weeks and months, the City will work with many stakeholders to decide if Albemarle is the right site by looking at alternative site plans with the help of the architectural team. We look forward to working with the Parks & Recreation Commission, the Council on Aging, the City Council, neighbors of Albemarle and the Day Middle School, and community members.
While the Albemarle-Gath Pool site is the top ranked location for NewCAL and will be studied in depth, the City will continue to consider non-city-owned sites until a final proposal is sent to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Council on Aging and the City Council.
NewCAL Meeting Schedule:
· Monday, Sept. 9 – Finance Committee – City Hall, Room 222 at 7:00 p.m.
· Wednesday, Sept. 11 – Design Review Committee – Library, Trustees Room at 6:00 p.m.
· Monday, Sept. 16 – Parks and Recreation Commission – City Hall, Room 211 at 7:00 p.m.
· Wednesday, Sept. 18 – Programs and Services Committee – City Hall, Room 211 at 7:00 p.m.
· Thursday, Sept. 19 – Community Meeting – Ed Center, Room 111 at 7:00 p.m.
· Monday, Sept. 23 – Community Meeting – F.A. Day School, Auditorium at 7:00 p.m.
· Tuesday, Sept. 24 – Council on Aging – Senior Center, at 7:30 p.m.
· Thursday, Oct. 24 – Community Meeting – Ed Center, Room 111 at 7:00 p.m.
· Thursday, Nov. 21 – Community Meeting – Ed Center, Room 111 at 7:00 p.m.
· Thursday, Dec. 12 – Community Meeting – Ed Center, Room 111 at 7:00 p.m.
In addition to these meetings, residents are welcome to join a “Chat with the Commissioner” every other Friday morning at the Newton Senior Center from 8am to 10am starting on 9/13 and running through this fall. This will be an opportunity for residents to speak directly with the Public Buildings Commissioner regarding the NewCAL project.
To be kept informed about the NewCAL project, please sign up at [email protected].
If BC’s campus was turned into a single family neighborhood the cost to Newton would be enormous. Residential properties are an expense of every city. Half of the city budget or more goes to education. The city does not get enough in taxes from a house to even cover the cost of educating one kid.
There is not enough demand to build commercial buildings on BC’s campus. We have enough stores and office space already, not to mention the traffic.
BC is a great neighbor and WW are worth preserving. If BC builds on their land the 25 acres, WW will still exist. BC will have to follow the conservation laws with any development. They are not exempt from environmental laws, just zoning by-laws.
Good land planning would be to have Newton swap land closer to BC’s main campus and unite WW. Newton might be able to come to an agreement to support BC in buying the rest of the houses between Hammond St, Beacon St and Reservoir St and let BC expand their campus by tearing those houses down.
Avoiding a long legal battle is in both parties best interest, but Newton must be prepared to make the first offer and they should be creative in their offer recognizing BC as an asset not an adversary.
The last time these two went to court BC won via the Dover Amendment. Both sides used very expensive outside legal counsel.
The Town of Wellesley stepped up to the plate and paid Wellesley College $45 million for 45 acres of land. Newton had every opportunity to buy the Temple before BC but refused to do so. Newton created this ownership situation. It’s time for Newton to admit that they are trying to take away a meaningful piece of land from BC and develop reasonable and meaningful options for BC.
I have lived on Hammond Pond Pkwy., within walking distance of Webster Woods, for 30 years. I am not wealthy. Hundreds of my Chestnut Hill neighbors are also not wealthy. Among other things, I am sick and tired of the people who post on this blog stereotyping everyone in Chestnut Hill as a wealthy person who wants all development to be on Newton’s North side, where the “riffraff” live. Then, they refer to this alleged desire as an “evident” NIMBY situation.
From first-hand experience, I can tell you that the Newton City Council (formerly the Board of Aldermen) ruined Chestnut Hill, as a residential area, by allowing too much commercial and residential development in a small area. The traffic and noise on Hammond Pond Pkwy, Boylston St. (Route 9) and the surrounding side streets became horrendous after The Street (Chestnut Hill Shopping Center) was renovated, along with development up the street at Chestnut Hill Square (where Wegman’s is).
Thirty years ago, you didn’t hear any traffic on Hammond Pond Pkwy. until around 7:00 a.m. Now, the traffic starts at 4:30 a.m. and the cars are bumper-to-bumper in front of my home by 6:30 a.m. As a result, I sleep with a white noise machine (a sound machine that blocks out ambient noise) and never take my car out of my parking space between 7:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. or between 4:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. During those hours, I struggle to get out of my driveway, and even if someone lets me into the street, I sit in traffic for a ridiculous amount of time trying to get anywhere.
I know people who have moved from this neighborhood because they could not get to work on time due to the traffic. And, I know someone who gave up commuting to work by bicycle because he couldn’t ride fast enough with the dense traffic on Hammond Pond Pkwy and Beacon St. to get to work in a reasonable amount of time.
Keep in mind that Boston College was already a terrible neighbor before they bought the property at 300 Hammond Pond Pkwy. Now, in addition to tying up the neighborhood during football games, they have brought over a huge number of large, high intensity lights, which they store in the parking lot along Hammond Pond Pkwy, creating both an eyesore and blinding light when they set up these lights along the road. They are now using Hammond Pond Pkwy as a parking lot for college events, so that I can’t leave my home by car or bicycle while these events are underway. There is also now a problem with large 18-wheeler trucks driving along Hammond Pond Pkwy at all hours of the day and night.
I am sure that the Boston College administrators will destroy Webster Woods because they do not care about anyone or anything in the area except themselves. As a long-time Chestnut Hill resident, I wish that Mayor Fuller would take the entire property by eminent domain, including the building and parking lots, so that people who live in Newton can have use of, and enjoy, the natural environment around it.
Unfortunately, a comment is an inadequate platform for fully explaining the intricacies of life in Chestnut Hill. All I can say is that we have had more than our fair share of dense development. If we have any more development near The Street, The Shops at Chestnut Hill (the Mall) and near the MBTA station around Hammond St., Chestnut Hill (in both Newton and Brookline) will become unlivable.
Concerning Webster Woods, please give me a break. It is self-evident that Mayor Fuller is not saving this land for herself. I walk and bike all around Chestnut Hill, at all hours of the day and night, 7 days per week, and I never see her anywhere in sight. The people who will benefit most from saving Webster Woods are those who travel to the Hammond Pond Reservation for the purpose of enjoying nature.
As an outdoors person, I am grateful to the Mayor for taking steps to save Webster Woods. However, despite being in favor of building a new Senior Center, I am NOT in favor of doing it by eliminating open space at Abermarle field or elsewhere.
While a multi-generational athletic complex would not work on Hammond Pond Pkwy (primarily due to traffic concerns), a dedicated Senior Center at the site of the former synagogue (300 Hammond Pond Pkwy) might work. Alternatively, I would be OK with building a Senior Center in Newton Center. I don’t understand why people on the North side of the City are complaining about having NewCAL built in their neighborhood. If it’s built there, it will result in a 30 minute ride for my neighbors and me, and will be less useful for us. In my opinion, a central location would be best for everyone.
Let’s stop stereotyping people who live in different parts of Newton. If you are in favor of preserving open space, say so. If not, provide arguments for why we should build developments in the open spaces located anywhere in the City of Newton, regardless of whether you live there yourself.
“Preserving the largest contiguous forest for Newton in perpetuity is essential,” Fuller said in the statement.
True, true, true! I am thrilled that the mayor has taken this step but ready for a long, potentially futile struggle in court with Boston College moving forward. My sympathies lie with Newton and its green space; BC is doing fine, thank you, in its relations with the Garden City.
Finally, I don’t sense a link between Webster Woods and NewCAL. We are all capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
@Hammond Pond Pkwy Resident
Hey there! I have been paying close attention to the NewCAL development ‘process’ ever since Parks / Rec leadership rolled over and agreed to the short-list of 6 possible sites. All 6 of them are Newton Parks. The past few weeks have been a real eye-opener for me – and not in a positive way.
Anyhow, my point : During these ‘listening sessions’, most people (including users of the current senior center) are NOT complaining about putting the NewCal on the northside … they’ ARE complaining that they are recommending putting it in a park on the northside. On a residential side street.
@Bob Jampol
So Newton sees wooded lands as essential, and parkland as sacrificial ? I suppose rampant development of our neighborhoods is also essential? Newton will become indistinguishable from Brighton or cambridge.
And the point is that we CAN all walk and chew gum at the time … so we SHOULD link these things together into a cohesive plan for the City – ideally one that is tied to sensible priorities.
John Oliver wrote: “Anyhow, my point : During these ‘listening sessions’, most people (including users of the current senior center) are NOT complaining about putting the NewCal on the northside …”
Actually, I was at the meeting last night, and I’m surprised how many people in the audience were framing the issues as “You keep dumping everything on the north side” (and it’s almost an exact quote from one person in the meeting). Like the entire idea of a senior center and athletic complex in itself is a pox (rather than its siting or how we pay for it).
The fact that people have gotten their backs so up against the wall on the issue that they are saying things like that points to the fact that we need to de-escalate this discussion. So let’s step back.
We have a crisis of our public buildings and facilities. The Senior Center sounds completely inadequate and borderline unsafe. Gath pool is in unacceptable condition from a maintenance standpoint (18,000 gallons of water lost PER DAY, according to the Commissioner). We don’t have enough year-round swim capacity for the kids in Newton, nor splash-around kinds of pools in the summer. Albermarle is a mess from traffic, ped/bike, accessibility, flood control, wetlands protection, parking, and use of green space point of view. And those are just things this process exposed. We can go on and on about other Newton’s other civic buildings.
Blame it on neglect or a lack of investment. But we have to fix these things. This we can and should be able to agree on. Maybe that’s the subject of an override.
The problem is that we’re somehow approaching these problems in a way that’s pitting people against each other. We’re coming up with compromised solutions first rather than building broad consensus on all of the city’s needs first.
Newton should have an awesome senior center. Convenient pools for kids to compete, adults to exercise, and families to splash and enjoy in the summer. An easy, safe way to walk to school. Fabulous forests to explore. Interesting places to shop and eat that can be reached from the local village by foot or bike. Sidewalks that are accessible to everyone. Civic buildings that are functional, comfortable, and encourage civic engagement and pride.
But Newton also needs a process for consensus that acknowledges needs, addresses concerns, encourages compromise, and builds enthusiasm and broad constituency.
Can we really not do that?
@Patrick Moriarty in looking at the grant/special income information in the school budget B.C. gave $100k per yr for Technology in FY2016 & FY 2017 but not FYrs 11-15, 18 or 19 (as of 3/19)
Here is an old document (2006-07) which shows how B.C. valued it contributions to the community. It values the amount of time that students volunteered at $3.5M. I couldn’t find anything more recent like this document but it looks like they now spend most of their time supporting Boston Public Schools or Catholic schools.
https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/sites/imp/pdf/zoning_commision_/13_Community_Benefit.pdf
I find it ironic for anyone to suggest that I support rampant development and the construction of NewCAL on parkland. On the most recent controversy, I was one of the organizers of the movement in resistance to placing the new senior center on green space. I am really proud that residents rallied around our efforts to the tune of 7000 signatures on that wonderful petition. Paul Levy and Daniel Jackson will attest to that (they deserve the lion’s share of the credit, by the way, but the Friends of Cold Spring Park, a group with whom I work, played a useful role coordinating the movement).
As for development, since the days when I wrote columns for the Tab, I have been railing against mega-developments that strain our infrastructure while providing precious few rental units that any family of low and moderate income can afford. I supported the initial proposal of Bnai Brith to put a modest project at the Austin Street site for seniors: just one block from the current senior center! At the time, it was a great idea.
The formula for 40bs usually means that those developments will house mostly affluent young couples and young singles: not the socioeconomic sector I thought we were hoping to incorporate into our Newton community. My mantra has been that big developers target the affluent…and Newton has plenty of those already. I just wish that everyone would be more honest about it.
The epidemic of teardowns has been another tragedy for the Garden City. Our own children, who might have managed to purchase a Cape or ranch house here in the past, now must seek a home in distant satellite communities. Yet councilor Sangiolo’s modest proposal for a one-year moratorium to study the problem went down in flames at a City Council meeting whose gallery was bursting with smiling realtors.
Still, I don’t demonize those whose views of development and teardowns differ from mine. And I am ready, like Lisle Baker, to praise initiatives by city government that enhance our city in the long run. I don’t expect that everyone sees the world as I do; that’s where conversation and respectful debate come into play.
I hope that Newton succeeds in preserving Webster Woods- that’s good news for all of us.
The mayor is in over her head on the Woods, Unions, Senior Center, etc. Scott Lennon would have made our city relevant rather then a laughing stock.
BC has the right to do what they want with the woods. I’m hearing hockey rink, 50mil basketball practice center, and admin buildings. I am hopeful BC prevails in court. Newton is out of luck on this battle. Who is with me?
I’m feel confident that Scott Lennon would have also did the right thing and preserved Webster Woods.
It’s important to preserve pristine woodland like this for the wider community, which also includes Boston College students.