Both the Globe and Newton Patch take deep dives this morning into Newton Mayor Ruthanne Fuller’s efforts to take 17 acres of Webster Woods from Boston College by eminent domain.
The Globe’s John Hilliard revisits the decision to by then Mayor Setti Warren to pass up a chance to purchase the woods when Congregation Mishkan Tefila was first looking to sell it.
“We reached out to the city, but they didn’t show any interest,” said Steven Kaitz, one of three co-presidents of the congregation.
And Patch’s Jenna Fisher quotes Boston College spokesperson Jack Dunn who says that Fuller will pay at the ballot box…
“An eminent domain seizure is an extreme measure that will undermine confidence in the Mayor and the City of Newton in the eyes of all property owners. It is also an expensive proposition that will be borne by the taxpayers of Newton. Boston College is the largest employer in Newton and we have several thousand alumni and parents who live in the city and vote regularly in its elections. Their voices will be heard in opposing the Mayor’s decision.”
Who is BC spokesman Jack Dunn — he of the recent “we don’t have to make more PILOT payments because we’re a Jesuit institution” and “we don’t make more PILOT payments out of concern for our tax status” quotes — kidding? The VAST majority of Newton residents, Jack — which I know because I polled the issue many times over the years — strongly oppose BC’s stingy PILOTs and think Newton contributes far more to BC than BC contributes to Newton. Not to mention that so many Newton residents want to see Webster Woods protected because they know that BC does not care a whit about Newton conservation and is just as likely to cut down the forest and build tall buildings as it is to save the woodland. Believe me, BC residents will not vote in a monolith against Mayor Fuller the way environmentalists/protectionists will vote to support her, especially now that she’s seen the light and pulled back on siting a new senior center on city parkland. Come on, Jack, get real. BC should make a deal with Newton ASAP because the city knows how detrimental it’d be to allow BC to hang onto this property. No matter what bombs you toss, we’re in it for the long haul.
Independent of the underlying issue involved, this is kind of a remarkable official statement from BC.
I really don’t know how much sway an employer or alma mater has on the individual votes of residents, especially residents that might also enjoy woods and other open space.
Seems like the kind of threat most effectively made quietly.
If this negotiation/legal process continues until the next mayoral election, what would an opponent to Mayor Fuller do? Give up on Webster Woods? That doesn’t sound like a political winner to me either. Say they’d agree to a land swap? Depends on the land and who lives next to it.
I guess ultimately voters can judge the Mayor on how she’s handled the situation, but it seems unlikely that the Webster Woods issue will return to the status quo when things all finally settle down.
What a ridiculous statement. I would be embarrassed to have my name next to it.
I’m known not to be a fan of the Mayor’s decision to take Webster Woods by friendly eminent domain without trying to negotiate a deal with BC first – although since this mayor does so many things behind the scenes I cannot say for certain that she hasn’t tried negotiation. Mayor Fuller had to know that BC, with its money and prestige, would fight her on this for as long as necessary.
It will cost Newton more public money than I could imagine.
Did she ask her constituents if this was the way we want our taxes to be spent?
All of this aside, BC’s statement consists of “fighting words.” It smacks of privilege and religious domination.
It brings out the worst in me – and I’m sure in others. I just want to shout “Don’t Threaten Newton!” Unless you’re prepared to have all of the might of the residents of Newton thrown at you – how hard it was to get an LGBTQ+ group on campus, how students were persecuted who attempted to hand out condoms on campus – hell, we could even bring up Catholic Guilt and Catholic Persecution if we played dirty.
How about we go back to negotiating a deal that’s good for us both since we share this city.
Maybe BC will start paying taxes!
>How to lose your 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status (without really trying)
>3. Political activity
>All 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate running for public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns at the federal, state and local levels.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/How%20to%20Lose%20Your%20Tax%20Exempt%20Status.pdf
Gerry, I’m not so sure that Mayor Fuller is actually giving up on placing her Whatever Center on Albemarle Park. As usual her thoughts on other sites are vague – as she continues to put money toward studying the siting in the park.
I do want the save Webster Woods but not at ANY cost.
@David M – There is nothing in the link your provided that even vaguely hints at some way an institution could lose its 501(c)3 tax status as a result of PILOT payments.
BC and quite a few 501(c)3 institutions in greater Boston already pay PILOT payments. The resentment torwards BC isn’t that they don’t pay PILOT, but that they pay meager PILOT payments.
What did you expect? That BC was just going to hand over the property? There’s been a lot of talk that the taking WW by eminent domain was a political action meant to bring BC to the table to maintain the property as conservation land. Well, that didn’t work.
A legal battle with BC is going to be extremely expensive. How much are Newton residents willing to pay for a legal battle with an institution with a $2.6b endowment? I hope that the city pursues a different course – return to the bargaining table and work out a deal.
Please leave religion out of this.
Jerry, I think David M is saying that a call by BC to vote against the Mayor could be construed as a “participating in [a] political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate running for public office” (I’m quoting him), which may be prohibited by 501(c)3.
The statement seems like an unforced error on BC’s part in any case.
@Mike Halle – Thanks. I missed that now rather obvious point 😉
From Dunn’s statement in the Patch article…
Here’s hoping some enterprising reporter will find out which land BC proposed to swap?
Shoulder surgery has kept me from commenting on V14 for a couple of weeks, and I’ll be typing one handed for the next few…
I’m weighing in now to support this Mayor, who I have never supported before. I believe her course of action regarding Webster Woods is the correct one. It’s clear BC has plans to eventually develop Webster Woods, and that’s something the city can never allow. Mayor Fuller should take the entire Hammond Pond Parkway property by eminent domain [not just the woodlands] and modify the existing structure for NewCal. It would be a huge win for conservationists, NewCal supporters, and Newton taxpayers.
David M.: This doesn’t even begin to meet the standard for lobbying or political involvement. I know a bit about this. Google the standard if you want, or you can trust me when I tell you that a 501c3 has some amount of leeway here. I’m too busy to look up the information and post, but the IRS wouldn’t even begin to view this as a problem, and one public statement is not even measurable.
I believe my initial reaction is being proved correct. BC will fight this. This will be expensive. And Newton screwed up not buying it from the Temple in the first place.
I have no desire to see Webster Woods turned into a college campus. But I also recognize that while this may a chess move by the mayor, too many folks are willing to let the ends justify the means.
I am all for ensuring that Webster Woods stays open and undeveloped, but can we drop the hysterics about BC threatening Newton? We had ample opportunity to buy the land from Congregation Mishkan Tefila before BC was even in the picture, and chose not to – what did we think would happen??? Now we’re all upset because BC, after buying the land fair and square, won’t just give it to us? Listen, I hate being put in the position of having to defend Boston College (having gone to a different Jesuit institution just to the west, I am conditioned to reflexively dislike anything associated with BC) but this – and the accompanying anti-Catholic rhetoric – is ridiculous. BC didn’t steal this land out from under us, they bought it. If we want it, and we don’t want to go bankrupt, we need to negotiate in good faith and work out something both parties can live with.
Maybe time to write the Pope? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-pope/pope-urges-politicians-to-take-drastic-measures-on-climate-change-idUSKCN1VM161 “There, governments will have the responsibility of showing the political will to take drastic measures to achieve as quickly as possible zero net greenhouse gas emissions and to limit the average increase in global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius with respect to pre-industrial levels, in accordance with the Paris Agreement goals.”
Protecting 17 acres of woodland from potential development is important for the climate and eminent domain is a drastic measure.
Welcome back Mike!!!
I align myself with Jane and Mike’s comments. I’m glad she’s doing it, but this could turn ugly.
I’m going to ask one more time that we leave religion out of this. Its inclusion in a discussion about political issues never ends well.
@Mike Striar so agree the old CMT parcel would be great for NewCal.
There is tons of parking, the nursery school would make a great art center, the main building great space for a theatre, of which seniors are the top demographic, and plenty of classroom space. Would have to do something about public transportation and encouragement of walking to the nearby condos which house many seniors but it’s at least workable IMHO.
That’s an outrageous statement coming from Jack Dunn. Mayor Fuller is absolutely right on to take the woodlands by eminent domain.
Just came from a Friends of Webster Woods meeting where we heard first hand from Mayor Fuller and others involved in preserving the woods.
BC is not being transparent in their dealings with the public. All the City was asking for was a pledge not to develop Webster Woods, and they would NOT commit to that. They wanted to keep their options open in the future to bulldoze Webster Woods.
BC has not been a good partner in making this a win for them and the community, and we have no other option but for eminent domain. Based on what was said at the Friends meeting, the City is on extremely solid legal ground and the only legal tie-ups will be in the FAIR MARKET value of the City purchasing the Woods. It will br bonded and paid for over a long period of time, and the City has adequate financial resources to buy Webster Woods AND commit to other community preservation goals.
fignewtonville: BC threatening to lobby its alumni to vote out the mayor is certainly overstepping its non-profit status. I doubt the IRS will revoke their status based on this one statement, but if BC continues to use its non-profit resources to influence the city election then the city and state secretary “Prince of Darkness” should take appropriate legal action.
Once you find the time to google those sources you will see I am correct 😉
Dunn’s wording was clever (I guess), in that he didn’t say that they would vote against her, but only that their voices “would be heard.” “Being heard” could take place outside of an election. But, still, it is not an appropriate thing for an official spokesperson to have said.
What is most unfortunate is that the City of Newton had the opportunity under former Mayor Warren to purchase Webster Woods. Mishkan Tefila President Steven Kaitz said the City showed no interest at that time.
David:
So…there is certainly an IRS prohibition on involvement in political campaigns. By the express language of the Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are completely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
But…the IRS has a facts and circumstances test for things like this. And there are a number of reasons why they would never look at this:
1) We are not in a political campaign season for mayor. There is no current candidate running against her.
2) No funds were expended, it was just a simple PR statement.
3) At no point did the Spokesperson say: Don’t vote for Mayor Fuller. Certainly you could take the view of that, or you could view it as a reminder that BC has a large alumni and staff presence in Newton and that those people vote. It is nuanced, but the language is careful.
4) No mention of another candidate
5) It is concerning an issue directly related to BCs interests where the Mayor alone has taken a direct opposing interest. Again, circumstances matter.
6) The IRS has limited staff and doesn’t police stuff like this. At all.
Again, this doesn’t remotely meet any type of facts and circumstances test. And colleges do this ALL the time. Harvard routinely throws its weight around Cambridge for instance. BU used to fight regularly with the various mayors of Boston back in the day. The IRS did nothing.
Also, there are plenty of options for BC if it actually wants to oppose the mayor directly. It could form a 501c4 organization. It could simply ask its various alumni groups to do it on an informal basis. It can publicize the taking and simply keep blaming the mayor, again and again and again.
Relying on the IRS to slap the wrist of BC if it goes to war with the City on this issue seems like a losing strategy, not based in reality of how the IRS operates.
Or as Paul Levy said, not really appropriate for the spokesperson to say this. I agree with that, but no more than that.
Also, there is zero chance SOS Galvin would ever side with Newton over BC. He’s a BC alum. And alumni vote for SOS as well. And also, did I mention he is a BC alum. So…nope. 😉
Sometimes I don’t need the google.
If there’s plenty of money to purchase Webster Woods and build a three story community center – all in one year – can someone explain why 17 city union are working without a contract? Why are city employees told over and over that “there’s no money”? That’s what’s said. Literally. No money.
I favor a designated senior center and a negotiated purchase of Webster Woods, but I also value the employees who keep this city running and wish that more residents and readers of this blog would make the settlement of the 17 contracts a priority.
Capital projects are rarely, if ever, paid for in one calendar year. Webster Woods, as I understand it, would be paid for using CPA money, which cannot be used for salaries.
Of course, school and municipal worker contracts aren’t a one year proposition either, unless you’re only talking about a one time bonus.
I realize neither the WW nor the community center will be paid for in one year. That’s the point. They’ll be ongoing expenses in what employees are being told is a very tight budget.
It’s a question of priorities and right now, the people who do the day to day work to keep the city running aren’t a priority. Thankfully, NPS parents are supportive of the teacher’s contract situation, but other than that, the lack of a current contract for 17 city unions isn’t on anyone’s radar screen, and certainly not on the mayor’s radar screen. When she says we have plenty of money for two other projects that will be ongoing expenses, it’s important for residents to know that city employees are receiving a very different message.
Can anyone who was on the City Council in 2015, when Mishkan Tefila agreed to sell to sell to BC, — and that includes most current city councilors — tell us if anyone on the City Council was aware that Mishkan Tefila was interested in selling to the city? Or was that knowledge confined to the Setti Warren administration? It seems that the City Council sprung into action after the BC agreement was announced, with the unanimous resolution, but by then the horse was out of the barn.
For background:
http://bcheights.com/2015/08/05/boston-college-acquires-24-acres-in-chestnut-hill-owned-by-bostons-oldest-synagogue/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2015/10/07/newton-moves-protect-temple-land-from-development/cl1u8G5eWSedk1O8Ydo8DP/story.html
Did BC only approach Mayor Warren, and Mayor Warren didn’t choose to mention the offer to any city councilors, or were city councilors aware and didn’t do anything? It seems that even the Newton Conservators were taken by surprise at the time.
@Jane Frantz, during the Friends of Webster Woods meeting, concerns were raised about the cost of purchasing Webster Woods and its effect on the funds available to the Community Preservation Committee (which as Greg mentioned above cannot be used for paying salaries). See the CPC allowable spending here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/38447
I was paraphrasing the response that the CPC couldn’t (nor would they) spend all of the CPC Open Space money on Webster Woods. Also, it was not the Mayor who was talking.
I think almost everyone is supportive of the NPS teachers and the other city unions and want them to get a contract soon, and it most certainly is on the mayor’s radar considering that the FY2020 budget is over $230 million dollars.
@Julia, it’s important for the community to focus on what can be done NOW to preserve Webster Woods. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever, so we need to let the current City Council as well as candidates know that we should save Webster Woods.
Note: whenever BC talks about Webster Woods, they always use the phrase “no immediate plans” for development. That’s code for “we may cut down Webster Woods in the future.”
@Julia: My understanding is that only the mayor know about the opportunity at the time. It would be great if people who were councilors back then could confirm this.
Good question Julia. Total silence from those Councilors serving in 2015? Anyone?
@Nelson, I’m as interested as anyone in preserving Webster Woods — see my answer in the W3 debate, which was recorded just a day or so before the mayor’s announcement about eminent domain. The reason for my question is, I think it’s easier to make a case for eminent domain to the skeptics and people who are saying ‘the city had a chance to buy it and didn’t,’ and perhaps ultimately to the courts, if we are making up for one mayor’s malpractice in getting an inquiry/offer to sell from Mishkan Tefila and not telling anyone about it, than if half the City Council knew the property was up for grabs and didn’t do anything.
Given that the City Council voted unanimously, and the Newton Conservators have been working tirelessly for the last four years to preserve Webster Woods, I can’t believe that if any of them had known in 2015 that Mishkan Tefila was shopping the property around, they wouldn’t have been organizing a CPA application ASAP.
Julia, I know how involved you are in the goings on in Newton, so I’m surprised at your question but then I forget things too. The congregation definitely offered to negotiate a deal for the Woods to the City of Newton before the sale to BC.
Jonathan Dame wrote in the Wicked Local, in Oct, 2015
Jonathan Dame wrote in Oct, 2016
I want to acknowledge that I was wrong about steps taken by Mayor Fuller before resorting to using friendly Eminent Domain and CPA funds to acquire the 17 acres of Webster Woods abutting the paved area and building owned by BC. It sits between woodlands owned by the Newton Conservation Commission and the MA Department of Conservation and Recreation. Obviously she has been pursuing this acquisition for several years.
CPA funds, which come from taxes, may only be used for land preservation, outdoor recreation facilities, historic preservation, or affordable housing.
The below is from the Newton Conservator’s website:
John Hilliard wrote in the Globe in January, 2018
Good for Mayor Fuller, I don’t think she’ll hear any complaints from the local wildlife which inhabits Webster Woods if she seizes the land by eminent domain – preserving it for generations to come.
@Julia, I get that and I too wish something was done when the land was sold and there was a possibility that Webster Woods would be gutted for development. It would have certainly been less expensive to purchase it then.
At the same time, we have to focus on what can be done now. Discussion of what could have been done falls into BC’s PR narrative that well, you passed on it then, therefore you give up all rights to it now and forever (absolutely not!)
ED is easy to sell as we can emphasize BC’s position the entire time the Mayor has talked with them: they have steadfastly refused to pledge to the City that Webster Woods will remain pristine. Also, from a legal perspective ED this way is solid. I got the sense that ED doesn’t have to be approved by the City Council (I could be wrong here maybe it’s just the money to buy it? Or that’s distinction without a difference?).
There was talk of land swapping with woodland from Mass DCR. But nobody from the community would want that either. We want to save the little woodland we have left, no matter where it is in Newton.
@Julia, It’s inconceivable to me that City officials didn’t know about the sale back in 2015. At a minimum, there was public coverage of this before the deal was finalized (See, for example, “Boston College is in active discussions with Congregation Mishkan Tefila….” https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2015/08/boston-college-in-talks-to-acquire-big-chestnut.html) I don’t know the terms surrounding the “potential deal,” but, at a minimum, it still required official approval by the trustees of both organizations. Note August 2015 quote from Boston College spokesman Jack Dunn said. “If the sale is finalized… (https://www.bostonherald.com/2015/08/05/the-ticker-masschallenge-to-open-newton-site/)
I don’t know, but I wonder if there was still a chance for the City to intervene and make a counter-offer before the deal was closed.
That’s interesting. I also forgot about the media coverage leading up to the sale, but it’s coming back now. It looks like we have the Conservators to thank for making everyone realize the gravity of the situation. Clearly people did not see it before the deal happened.
Quite a contrast between the two mayors: Not interfering in a *potential* private deal vs. taking land by eminent domain.
Nicely done Marti.
It’s refreshing to hear an occasional “I was wrong” among the sea of “you are wrong”s that is a blog.
The Boston Globe recently published a letter to the editor authored by Kenneth Kimmel, co-chair of the Friends of Webster Woods.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2019/10/03/newton-has-compelling-interest-preserving-college-owned-woods/tT1MJ4OWi8IxR10NPoRF4N/story.html
Re “Newton in legal fight to seize woodland” (Metro, Oct. 1): The important question is not whether the City of Newton dropped the ball years ago when offered a chance to purchase wooded land currently owned by Boston College; rather, it is whether Newton should protect the woods now.
This wooded parcel has been at the top of the city’s open-space acquisition list for years. It is surrounded by city-owned woods to the north and state-owned woods to the south, constituting the largest contiguous open space left in Newton, and it offers unique recreational opportunities. If the city does not take steps to protect it, Boston College has the right to develop the parcel and irreparably damage the quiet beauty of these woods and jeopardize the existing public investment in them.
As to claims that a taking by eminent domain is unfair, the college bought the land knowing the compelling public interest in preserving the woods, and in any event it would be paid fair market value for that land, as decided by a jury.
Ken Kimmell
Newton