It was a packed house (chamber) last night. Folks came out with signs of support for the proposed eminent domain taking of Webster Woods. There were some who expressed reservations and objections: Notably, Boston College Administration, Boston College alums, Newton Youth Soccer and other residents concerned about the significant amount of CPA funds going towards a single project. Just a reminder: The CPC Request requested by the Conservation Commission $15,740,000 ($15,200,000 for land acquisition + $15,000 for Newton Conservators Administration fee for holding Conservation Restriction + $525,000 for legal and other costs)- $200,000 raised by the Community for a total project cost of $15,940,000.
Thoughts?
Rather than spend $15 million of CPA funds on one project.
I as a tax payer would like to see both B.C. and the mayor work out a solution. Some of the land could be spared for recreational use.
B.C. could build a low structure on part of the site.
There has never been a better way to spend CPA funds than this acquisition. This really is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I applaud the mayor for moving through with eminent domain.
Several teenagers and BC students spoke and made excellent arguments for preserving the wood in perpetuity.
On the other hand, the BC administrator brought up points that, while technically correct, were also misleading. For instance, he mentioned that Newton has many priorities (e.g., teachers). Yes, that’s true, but CPA funds can’t be spent on teachers.
The BC administrator’s comments were a farce. Not a word about the woods or about BC’s commitment to conservation. All about BC being a good neighbor and “worrying” about Newton’s finances: teachers, roads, services, as if they care one iota. Just trying to stir the pot among Newton residents, or maybe to improve BC’s position ahead of negotiating a deal.
CPA money is dedicated for three distinct purposes – affordable housing, historic preservation and open space/recreation. The Newton CPA fund has historically allocated fixed fractions of each year’s funding to each of the three purposes. According to Beth Wlkinson from the Newton Conservators , the plan here is to amortize the funding over (I believe) 30 years. Over those years, the Webster Woods payments would take up about half of the money allocated to Open Space and not touch the other two pots.
Unlike virtually all of the other CPA projects this one’s benefits are not for the next 10 or 20 or 30 years but will be a bequest to future generations in Newton in perpetuity. To not proceed with this would be short-sighted in the worse way.
Once open land is developed it never gets undeveloped. Not in our lifetime, not the next, nor the next.
Looking backwards we all owe an enormous debt to our far-seeing predecessors who put other other loved and undeveloped land in Newton – like the Charles River waterfront, Edmands Park, Dolan Pond under public control in perpetuity. Let’s do this one for the Newtonites yet to come.
There should be no higher priority than the City’s acquisition and/or permanent preservation of the entire Webster Woods (be that by eminent domain if necessary). IMHO, it absolutely trumps all other CPA uses — and beyond that trumps NewCAL if money becomes an impediment — in terms of importance (including for the climate change adherents).
I’m glad to hear that some BC students spoke in favor of preserving the woods.
@Coleen Minaker –
As I understand it, the proposed eminent domain taking would leave BC with the already developed temple and parking lot but preserve the undeveloped woods that bisects through the middle of Webster Woods. It would also leave BC with the easement for the electric line that runs through the woods.
What they could/would build on the site would then be determined by the normal zoning rules.
Last night’s discussion showed once again that BC cannot be trusted in any way. It seems that CPA funding must go forward. If the mayor can reach an agreement with them that’d be great but I can’t imagine it happening. By the way, wouldn’t it be great to know exactly what land BC was referencing in its land swap proposal? The city ought to make that public as we proceed along the CPA path.
@Gerry Chervinsky: They wanted to swap DCR land facing Hammond Pond Pkwy for the back portion of their property. Fortunately DCR refused any such deal.
I also think this acquisition is a good use of the CPA funds. Looking ahead, the playing fields in Newton are in terrible shape and need substantial capital investment. They are used by thousands of families in the city. My hope is that there will also be widespread support for that purpose in future CPA requests, perhaps led by the youth and adult sports leagues. (After a capital infusion, increased funding for field maintenance from the city budget and/or fees on those teams will also be necessary to preserve these assets.)
@Paul Levy: One of the speakers yesterday mentioned the playing fields. I think there will be wide support for investing in them.
@Sid Simmons: Mayor Warren was against it. The city council would have easily approved a purchase back then.
Just a reminder, Massachusetts has the Dover Amendment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_Amendment
The Dover Amendment is the common name for Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 40A, Section 3. This law exempts agricultural, religious, and educational corporations from certain zoning restrictions. It allows a structure that provides certain services to ignore local zoning laws and build the facility it needs to provide those services. The Dover Amendment allows many developers to build facilities that are substantially larger than zoning laws would ordinarily allow or which would be considered inappropriate, by some, for the neighborhood
If I’m correct, it was Tom Keady, Vice President, Governmental and Community Affairs of Boston College who spoke last night at the CPC meeting (right after the students from Boston College’s EcoPledge and Climate Justice spoke – go students!)
One point he raised is that BC approached the City about permitting a salt storage facility, and that the City allowed BC to construct it. The implication is that the City didn’t particularly care about Webster Woods then before construction, so why now?
What he failed to mention is that the City had no legal basis to deny the construction of the salt storage facility. I imagine that the City could have taken BC to court to fight it, and I would assume (IANAL) that the City would have lost.
A coach (director?) from the Newton soccer teams also spoke about the poor condition of the grass fields in Newton. I agree, it’s important that the fields be upgraded (how did they get so crappy to begin with?), and seriously, a group of folks should organize and go through the proposal process with the CPC for the funds (if that’s the appropriate avenue).
Paul:
And the playgrounds. And historic buildings and artifacts. And affordable housing.
So long as we keep the split 1/3 for open space, historic and affordable, fix those soccer fields…
But at some point, that is also snagging the CPA bucket of money for a purpose it wasn’t intended for. The well runs dry at some point, and there are rules about the water…
Everybody has a pet cause or use. But the city should be maintaining their fields as a matter of course. I’d gladly support an override that dedicates a much larger pot of money to field maintenance. But CPA was supposed to be restricted money, so that the city couldn’t just shift expenses to it. If it can, what the heck is the purpose of it.
This would seem like a textbook use case for eminent domain along with tapping CPA funds to facilitate it. The land itself is currently undeveloped and eminent domain is being used to ensure a public use of the land (keeping it undeveloped). BC hasn’t done anything with this land outside of the salt storage so outside of making them whole for the value no development is being torn down and no one is being forced off the land.
Once this land is developed it’s gone, there’s no going back and undoing that. As others have mentioned this is a once in generation opportunity, we can’t create a replacement for what would be lost here. It’d be great if the city could work something out with BC but short of that now is the time to move forward with eminent domain while the land is still undeveloped. Yes it’s going to consume a significant amount of CPA funds but it’s absolutely worth it, this is what those funds are there for.
@fig: I agree with this: “But CPA was supposed to be restricted money, so that the city couldn’t just shift expenses to it.” But recreation is one of the categories (for capital, not operating.) So it’s worth a look when the case is made, I think.
Repairing the fields is a capital expense? I’d think that maintaining the fields is actually operating, but I don’t run the CPC.
Again, I’d love for the soccer fields to be redone. But if the city can shift repair to the CPA pot of money, what isn’t actually allowed?
You want to go acquire new soccer fields, I’m all for it. Build a new synthetic field, maybe. New Sprinker system, maybe. But replanting grass? Reseeding? These are the job of the city. They should figure out how to do that in the City budget.
I know there have been court cases about this which would stop both of us from playing armchair expert (not that ANYONE ever does THAT on this forum…) but I’m going to bed. Another time perhaps. Good nite!
Armchair? How dare you! Anyone posting is automatically an *expert* on Village 14!
I was happily being an Armchair spectator on this one. For those talking about playing fields, the city does have a field sitting right at the end of Warren St on the left, immediately before entering the Webster Woods area. Its a reasonable size (it would accommodate full size football dimensions) and the city maintains it (cut the grass). In times past, I am told it used to have an operating playground too.
As part of the Webster Woods process, perhaps we can find a more useful purpose for the field too.
@Fignewtonville. The fund specifically allows money to be allocated to “rehabilitation”
https://www.communitypreservation.org/allowable-uses
Newton’s fields are so poor that many are well beyond repair through standard maintenance practices. Capital investment is required.
As @Paul Levy points out the city has underfunded maintenance on athletic fields for years. The budget is $100K and should be at least 5x that amount if not more based on industry standards. The result now is we have fields that are in need of capital investment just to bring them back to acceptable levels. Fields are used EVERY DAY by many 100’s (possibly 1,000’s) of residents of all ages. During the Spring there are over 1,000 school athletes who practice and play five days a week (plus all the youth programs). Families gather at games every weekend. There are few other activities that bring people together from all across our City with this regularity.
Here is a recent independent data based report on Weeks Field. Resulting grade of D
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lgVaqey7bWm-zjmfITOTPGn5bXNM5gSY/view?usp=sharing
Since the 90’s things have changed but the city’s approach has not. Areas of increase include: participation rates, the number of athletes playing on multiple teams at the same time (not always a good thing for the kids) and the popularity of sports such as soccer, lacrosse and ultimate frisbee that have different facility and maintenance requirements than sports that were historically more popular. All this time the Spring has brought record rain (bad) and the Summer average temps have increased. The excuse is that “fields are over used”. First that is good, we want people to use them. Second, the fact is that maintenance needs to increase with use. If anything we went the opposite way.
Take a trip to Brown Oak hill and walk around the fields there. They look more like the rolling hills of a golf course than an athletic complex. Then go over to Day MS and look at the soccer/lacrosse field closest to Watertown street. There is almost no grass at all. The football field there has bare areas 30 yards in diameter. Finally, go to Burr school in Auburndale. A field that was once used by soccer programs. You will struggle to discover any level area with healthy turf. The list goes on and on.
Here are some photos from this year
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P4rrRkitgR-hswQbIVzNknS8YB5q2GJr/view?usp=sharing
Clearly our City values green space. We want our residents to have opportunities to play outside which more important now than ever as “screen time” becomes the number one activity for many kids. Yet Newton’s maintenance of and investment in these areas falls short.
Justin Traxler, President Newton Girls Soccer
Kudos to those going after CPA funds to refurbish our sub par playing fields. And where are all the folks clamoring for more affordable housing whenever the topic of Northland?? $17m to help subsidize workforce housing would be a good thing, right?
Someone with more knowledge of CPA funding can correct me, but is it even possible to bond $17 million for affordable housing? That seems like a stretch to me in terms of subsidizing housing as Matt describes it.
CPA funds are generally split amongst four areas, with affordable housing being the largest of the “pie” at 35% give or take 5% (compared to open acquisition at 20% give/take 5%).
The threat of development by Boston College and bulldozing Webster Woods necessitates taking action now before it’s too late.
Paraphrasing from Kenneth Kimmel’s message to the Friends of Webster Woods. It contains news that Boston College currently has plans to develop the ENTIRE Hammond Pond Parkway property, including Webster Woods.
CPC APPROVES WEBSTER WOODS ACQUISITION
The Community Preservation Committee just voted 7-1 to approve the Webster Woods acquisition. One member objected – he supported preserving Webster Woods but thought that there should be improvements for public access.
City Council will discuss matter on November 25 and if all goes well, vote on December 2.
BOSTON COLLEGE HAS PLANS TO DEVELOP WEBSTER WOODS
Last week Boston College filed a lawsuit against the Community Preservation Act Committee to block the committee from voting which was *rejected* today.
In its lawsuit, it contained the following sentences:
““BCC…currently owns the HPP [Hammond Pond Parkway] Property which consists of 25 acres, of which the front 8 ½ are developed…The University has plans in progress and anticipates future development of the entire HPP Property.”
This statement is followed by a “Verification” in which Father Leahy states that he has “read this Verified Complaint” and “the allegations of fact stated therein are true to the best of my knowledge.” He signed this Verification “under the pains and penalties of perjury this 5 th day of November 2019.”
The City Council needs to act now to save Webster Woods before it’s too late.
The Community Preservation Committee approved the funds yesterday.
Congrats Newtoner. I know how much you care about this and I’m glad my kids will be able to walk the woods, even if I’m not thrilled about the method to acquire.
Fignewtonville: No one is thrilled about the method, but in the long run it will not matter.
Maybe I should also direct that to Nelson too. Congrats!
Newtoner:
I agree it won’t matter for the woods. I’m happy for the short term result. I’m just personally have issues with the State taking land lawfully acquired via eminent domain. I try not to vary my principles and say the end justifies the means.
I fully understand most folks disagree with me. I wish the prior administration had taken more decisive action.
I’ve said my piece about this, and really I am happy for you and the other folks who so love the woods. My congrats was sincere.
We’re not out of the woods yet! City Council still needs to approve it, and BC has plans to bulldoze the woods for development and iirc they can sell the land in 50 years to private developers because they’re a non-profit (I’m fuzzy on the details on this but it was mentioned in the public commentary at CPC meeting).
I believe in property rights and abhor the use of eminent domain such as taking away homes to make way for highways and such (especially as it disproportionately affects lower income and minority communities – there are plenty of shameful incidents in our country’s history to draw from).
This is not the case here of trading one type of developed land for another. Once developed those woodlands are gone forever, and everyone would be worse off for it.
I received a “Dear Neighbor” letter today from Thomas Keady Jr BCs Vice President of Governmental and Community Affairs today about the City’s plans to seize their land by eminent domain. It states that 28 projects are vying for the $14M in CPC funds that Newton has and they will all lose out if the Mayor proceeds with her plan. He mentions that Hebrew College sold 7 acres for $18M and Newbury College sold their 8 acre campus for $34M and that Newton Tax payers will end up paying the difference between the amount that the City has budgeted and the award determined by the courts.
Of course he mentions what a good neighbor BC has been and then gives the City Councilors & Mayors contact info.
I received the letter, too, but didn’t yet have a chance to read it. This is the first time in 40 years BC has ever approached me as a “neighbor.” It makes me feel warm and fuzzy, especially the attempt to divide and conquer the citizenry.
Mayor Fuller’s pricetag always seemed way short of reality.
Of course the land would be used for preservation and not for-profit development, but a 1/4-acre lot for a teardown is going for $1M in my Newton neighborhood.
An independent appraiser made the fair market valuation of the Webster Woods land.
When BC takes the City to court over the sale price (not whether the eminent domain acquisition can happen, it will), I imagine the judge won’t look kindly upon a lowball sale price.
Hebrew and Newbury College sold their buildings and land which are already developed, so comparing those sales prices to undeveloped woodland is an apples and oranges comparison.
Also the 14 CPC projects vying for $14 million in funding is a boldfaced lie. Even if we were to spend all that money on Webster Woods, we can’t BY LAW (state minimum is 10% on the 4 areas covered by CPA funds). Not to mention that Webster Woods has been a high priority target by the CPC since 1981 – only about 35+years ago!)
@nelson – thanks for the background information. Very helpful.
More data for those data people on this forum
All CPA Projects
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/41255
Total Use of CPA funds by category
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/41254
$9 M total spend on open space since CPA funds available
FY2021–FY2025
Capital Improvement Plan
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/99660
The WW project is currently the largest project docketed for review by the Newton City Council
If approved, it will be the second largest approved project on the CIP plan
The largest is currently Needham Street Upgrades: $26.8M
If any one knows Newton’s cost of borrowing for a AAA rated 30 year bond please share
30-year AAA-rated muni bonds now yield 2.2%
https://www.fmsbonds.com/market-yields/