The Globe has published columns in favor and opposed to Mayor Fuller’s plan to take Webster Webster Woods from Boston College by eminent domain.
Should Newton take Webster Woods from Boston College by eminent domain?
by village14 | Oct 24, 2019 | Boston College, Boston Globe, Newton, Webster Woods | 22 comments
Yes, absolutely acquire by eminent domain if need be.
A bad idea to engage in a legal battle with an institution with a huge endowment that can keep an expensive legal battle going for years. Do we really want to spend CPA funds on legal fees? Go back to the negotiating table and work out a deal to preserve the woods. I believe it can be done.
Full disclosure – I oppose eminent domain taking of property unless it’s a friendly taking. I hate the concept.
There are all kinds of valid concerns about this project – the city’s current and projected fiscal deficits, the swamping of the CPA fund with one humongous project, legal issues about the appropriate use of eminent domain – but I want to take the long view for a moment.
”
The city has a page of wonderful historic city maps on its web site.
Check out the map from 1848. Most of the city was empty with a few scattered developments where some of today’s village centers are and nothing else but open land in between.
Now move to 1886, a tremendous amount of that land in between the villages has been filled in. Now move through 1895, 1907, 1917, 1929 – with each passing of a decade, more and more undeveloped land disappears.
Today in 2019, for a very built out developed suburban town Newton still has a substantial amount of undeveloped natural land that is immensely appreciated by the populace- nearly all of it under public control. The Charles River riverfront was put under public control in the late 1800’s and today it is one of most values natural resources in the city – everything from Nahanton Park, Hemlock Gorge, Lower Falls, Riverside, The Cove, etc.
Other pockets of undeveloped land are under city control – Edmands Park, Dolan Pond, Hammond Pond, Webster Woods (partially)
When you look at these old maps one thing becomes very clear. Once a piece of undeveloped natural land gets use for some kind of development – that’s it. It’s permanent. It’s never coming back.
Most of the 17 acre parcel of land that was purchased by Boston College is part of the much larger 100+ acre of Webster Woods – one of the only and biggest section of undeveloped woods in the city of Newton.
It’s always very easy to let a few acres go – we’ll build some houses, a road, some commercial building. That’s what we’ve been doing for a couple of hundred years. At this point though the remaining open land becomes a scarcer and scarcer, more valuable resource for all of us.
Sitting here in 2019, we all owe an enormous debt to the forward thinking folks who in the late 1800’s put all out riverfront land under public control. I’m sure it was a controversial decision then but 150 years later we can enjoy the benefits every day.
Likewise today we have the opportunity to preserve those 17 acres, most of which is woods, part of the greater Webster Woods. If we do, 150 years from now our descendants will be enjoying a pocket of nature in a world that then will have far less of it. If we don’t, in a very short time those 17 acres WILL be developed.
What you can see from all those historic maps is that once land gets developed it ain’t never coming back.
Save Webster Woods!
Take the land. BC cannot be trusted to preserve it.
Has anyone ever identified the land BC wanted as a land swap?
Yes. It is important to remember that the Webster Family gave 38 acres of land to the Commonwealth as open space over a century ago, but in 1954 the Metropolitan District Commission sold over 25 acres of the original donated land to the Temple, and the Temple more recently sold that same land – identified as 300 Hammond Pond Parkway – to Boston College. Taking the open land at 300 Hammond Pond Parkway, while allowing Boston College to continue to own and use the developed portions, will return the remaining forested and ecologically important portion of Webster Woods to public open space as the Webster family originally intended. The taking will also preserve for posterity the heart of the surrounding City and State conservation land using funds set aside by Newton Taxpayers for open space under the Community Preservation Act.
From BC’s letter it looks like they’re ready to negotiate a deal. They know “market value” is defined at the moment eminent domain is filed, so a prolonged legal battle is not in their interest.
How much of that land is really developable anyway? No one wanted to purchase it from the failing synagogue for years because of the wetlands and, in other sections, the ledge. Is the city wasting money acquiring a property with minimal developable land anyway?
@NativeNewtonian: Obviously the assessment of 15M or so takes the wetland restriction into account. Take a look at a topographic map. Even without building on the wetland, BC could easily erect a set of buildings along a straight line that will cut through the entire length of the woods.
I would like to know more about BC’s proposed “land swap.” As a civil litigator, I always counsel my clients to pursue out-of-court resolutions to disputes whenever and wherever possible. Thomas Keady’s comments lead me to believe that BC intends to oppose the taking as well as the valuation of the land. Based on the city’s experience with the taking of a property on Crystal Lake, this could drag on in the courts for years.
Yes to saving Webster Woods. No if eminent domain means a long, protracted legal battle with BC. The optics of the city spending lots of $$$$ on legal fees while there are so many other needs – unions without contracts, failing infrastructure, structural deficits, etc. – are terrible.
BC wanted the land across from their building, which if I understood it correctly is located in the Hammond Pond Reservation owned by Mass DCR.
Mayor Fuller wasn’t interested in sacrificing one woodland for another. She’s right.
Taking Webster Woods and ensuring that it is protected for many generations is the right move.
I’d gladly take a protracted 10 year legal battle if it means having these woods around for the next 100 years or more.
Keep in mind that the City will win as our eminent domain case is strong. It’ll be tied up legally if BC wants to extract more money than the assessed fair market value of the woods. Let them do it, the optics will be bad for them and they know it. That’s why they’re going with the PR campaign against it to have community members oppose it.
I support the Mayor’s position 100%. If necessary take by eminent domain.
I agree with most people here that purchasing Webster Woods is a wise once-in-a-lifetime investment. However, we have to be clear that that means that we are crowding out some other potential investments that the CPA fund might use for historic preservation, affordable housing and other parks. It won’t take up all of that money, but it will take up a large chunk. I still support it, but it is something to consider and calculate.
I agree with a lot of the points here about preservation but if you want to talk about optics, it would look more like a Newton wide initiative vs a Chestnut Hill driven effort if abutters like Rory, Ken, Ruthanne, and Lisle weren’t running point on the Save Webster Woods effort. Put other folks from around the city in the lead and this effort would have a wider backing in all the villages.
I saw Save Webster Woods signs in Newton Corner, Newtonville, and other areas when driving around. Also there were some young middle school/high school folks at the last Friends of Webster Woods meeting. Support is strongest closest to the woods, but it’s by no means just a neighborhood benefit.
Living next to the woods on the Thompsonville side, we are witness to a steady stream of people who come from other parts of Newton to walk, stroll, explore, walk dogs. People come on our street and park– we have gotten to meet and know people from other parts of Newton as a result. We fully support Mayor Fuller’s position not just for us, but knowing first hand that it is a well loved and well used resource more broadly.
@Nelson, thanks for the 411.
I would like to see the City acquire these 17 acres of Webster Woods, but I also think there is still room for negotiation/mediation that could result in a “friendly” taking. Who knows whether 10 years from now the Mayor (whoever she is) will want to pursue this or the City will have the wherewithal to buy it. As Mr. Keady pointed out, the previous Mayor had the opportunity to purchase this property, but did not pursue it. Who knows what the next Mayor might do? IMHO, it is still better to pursue a voluntary resolution of this dispute as soon as possible so as to eliminate uncertainty as to the outcome.
No one is against buying Webster Woods. The question is what’s the best means for making that happen? Through a negotiated deal or by an eminent domain taking that’s guaranteed to result in a costly legal battle? If CPA funding goes to paying for legal fees for who knows how long, there will be less CPA money for other projects it’s entitled to pay for (affordable housing for instance).
There’s no question that a negotiated deal is better. Eminent domain is exercised only if that fails.
@Jim Agree with you that a negotiated deal is best