From a reader, we received a copy of the most recent letter from Boston College to its neighbors. The full text of the letter, below. It amounts to a factually sketchy warning that your elected representatives don’t have your best interests in mind. BC, however, does.
Basically, Vice President for Governmental and Community Affairs Thomas J. Keady, Jr. devotes the bulk of the letter to warning Newtonians about the reckless course the city is on. No affordable housing or playgrounds. (Not true.) Will eat up the entire CPA fund balance. (Also, not true.*) Will prevent the city from dealing with “urgent priorities to address that require funding, including schools in need of substantial upgrade, teacher salaries, fire stations, and the unfunded pension liabilities for municipal workers.” (Apples and oranges.) Fear mongering.
What’s missing — notably — is any claim that Newton need not fear development of Webster Woods, that our good neighbor BC also worries about potential loss of forested open space and is making it unnecessary for the city to worry. Nor does the letter take the opposite tack and make a case for why it’s important to BC’s mission to develop some or all of the parcel and how they will either mitigate or demonstrate how mitigation is not required. In short, nothing to directly address the feared loss of open space that’s motivating the eminent domain campaign.
Also, Mr. Keady asserts, without any specificity, that “Boston College has been a good neighbor and engaged member of the community since 1913.” Probably lacks specificity because BC is a not-for-profit that makes minimal payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT).
If BC wants to make a case for why eminent domain is unfair to BC, fine, make it. But please, Mr. Keady, spare us your faux concern about what our mayor and city council are doing to us. We find your concern disengenuous. And, we trust their judgment more than yours.
Dear Neighbor,
I write to you today in my role as Vice President for Governmental and Community Affairs at Boston College to raise concerns regarding the City of Newton’s plan to seize by eminent domain 17 acres of BC’s property at 300 Hammond Pond Parkway.
The Newton Community Preservation Committee has $14 million in a fund for affordable housing, historic resources, open space, and recreational land, currently with at least 28 projects vying for funding. All of these projects—from affordable housing and public parks/playgrounds to historic preservation—would lose out if the Mayor and City Council proceed to direct the entire fund to pay for Boston College’s land. The City also has additional urgent priorities to address that require funding, including schools in need of substantial upgrade, teacher salaries, fire stations, and the unfunded pension liabilities for municipal workers.
The City of Newton could have purchased the 300 Hammond Pond Parkway property during the 2014-2015 period, but declined. The City of Newton has appraised the value fo the 17-acre parcel at $15.2 million, but he current value of the property is likely far in excess of the amount budgeted by the City. If the City proceeds to take the land by eminent domain, the difference between Newton’s appraisal and the award determined by the courts will be absorbed by Newton taxpayers. To give some land cost perspective, two years ago Hebrew College sold 7 acres for $18million and this fall, Newbury College’s 8-acre campus sold for $34 million.
Boston College has been a good neighbor and engaged member of the community since 1913. Newton taxpayers deserve better than to be subjected to an ill-advised and expensive eminent domain proposal.
If you agree, please contact your Newton City Councilor at [email protected] or by calling 617-796-1210, and Mayor Ruthanne Fuller at [email protected] or 617-796-1000.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Thomas J. Keady, Jr.
Vice President, Governmental and Community Affairs
Boston College
Dear Neighbor,* Technically, Mr. Keady conditions the claim that the city will not be able to fund other CPA-eligible projects with “if the Mayor and City Council proceed to direct the entire fund to pay for Boston College’s land,” which, of course, is not what the mayor has proposed.
Not very smart on the part of BC, and coming from a guy whose job is “Community Affairs”.
His letter will only serve to fire up the already existing opposition of the Newton community to BC in connection with the aim to preserve Webster Woods.
Newton should present this as a challenge. Win the ACC championship in football next season, and Newton backs off so BC can build their parking lot. Lose the ACC championship, let Newton seize the land at the assessed value.
I just opened my copy of this letter (West Newton). Did they send a copy to every Newton household?
Not convincing, more likely negatively so.
BTW, my wife (who essentially takes the opposite view of mine on all political issues, but certainly agrees on preserving Webster Woods) just informed me that over the weekend she received on her cell phone a call from a BC student opposing Newton’s eminent domain acquisition of Webster Woods. My wife truncated the discussion, saying she favored Newton’s taking of Webster Woods, and hung up.
Haven’t heard of any other random calls like this
I got the same ‘Dear Neighbor’ letter and I live in Waban.
A crazy idea: BC should give the land to us in exchange for all the taxes they have not been paying.
@Jim Epstein – a discussion just popped up in the Newton Parents facebook group about the calls. Looks like many people have received them in the past few days.
The entity that doesn’t pay taxes is suddenly concerned us tax payers are getting screwed on taxes!
I thought this acquisition was gov over-reach but given BC’s level of contention, I’m warming up to the eminent domain idea.
I got the same letter and I live in Newton Centre.
This is so typical of BC, playing fast and loose with the facts to further it’s own interests without any regard for what’s best for Newton. They talk about suggesting a land swap but all they really suggested was Newton trading other conservation land for Webster Woods. Ridiculous. BC cannot be trusted. Mayor Fuller is righting Mayor Warren’s wrong. He’s a BC alum. He didn’t want to spend the money having just bought Aquinas so he looked the other way. Good for Mayor Fuller.
On the parallel thread, John White wrote: “I encourage you all to write Mayor Fuller and your councilors, supporting the protection of Webster Woods by eminent domain if necessary. Be sure to cc: [email protected]. ”
I agree and suggest adding that BC’s heavy-handed and deceptive tactics have made you that much stronger a supporter of this move.
How BC even got its hand on Webster Woods is bogus. That temple was allowed to sell its property to another religious institution or an education institution. When that stipulation was made, colleges and universities were true non-profits. Nowadays they are either professional football teams with a college sidecar. In BC’s case (since they don’t have a real football team), it’s a hedge fund with a college sidecar.
Dan Brody wrote up a convincing financial analysis debunking the misinformation BC is putting out there regarding whether the City can pay for it:
https://newtonconservators.org/webster-woods-can-the-city-afford-it/
What I found most interesting, because it was a unanswered question of mine, is that purchasing Webster Woods will allow the CPC to fulfill the rest of its mission for affordable housing, historic preservation, and other open space conservation. Here’s his conclusion, but I urge you to read through his full analysis (at least to better understand how the financing will work):
“The analysis indicates that between 91% and 93% of CPA funds over the next thirty years will remain available for projects other than Webster Woods.
I believe that the importance of this project justifies the allocation to it of a significant portion of the open space allocation target. But my analysis indicates that more than half of the open space target revenue will remain available for other open space projects. And the Webster Woods debt service can be repaid without touching the target allocations for affordable housing, historic preservation, or recreation.
Therefore, I conclude that the CPA Fund can afford to pay the debt service on the bonds for Webster Woods without negatively impacting other important CPA-eligible projects over the life of the bonds.”
Bruce,
Not only BC, but many many colleges are, as you say, “hedge funds with college sidecars”.
Moreover, they’ve got the best financial scam going in the history of the world, as follows: The U.S. Federal Government uses millions of students all over the United States annually as pass-throughs whereby the federal government gives billions of dollars annually to the colleges and universities, via those pass-throughs, but labeling those dollars “student loans”. And in addition to that, the more of those student pass-through dollars going to the colleges and universities, the more the colleges and universities can increase the amount of those dollars they get, labeling those dollars “tuition increases”. Those amounts increase with no limits or at least way beyond the rate of inflation. Then — and here’s the best part of the scam — all that money going to the colleges and universities is paid back to the U.S. Government in payments by those same pass-through students spread over many years even though they really cannot afford it, while the colleges and universities increase their hedge funds with that money. And in many if not a majority of those cases, what the pass-through students receive in return is either a worthless piece of paper, labeled a diploma, or in some cases, the colleges and universities have set up a further scam whereby employers across the country require those pieces of paper to agree to hire those pass-through students so those students can get the money to be paid back to the U.S. Government.
…but I digress
I have no relation to BC at all, but I think folks should stop and consider the other side here. They acquired the land and building through an open market sale. They spent time and energy doing so. They committed resources to do so. They had plans I’m sure for the site. We may not agree with those plans, but it was private land and was sold, and we as a community had a chance to buy.
Now we are saying we made a mistake, and it is a public purpose to claw back that sale, give you “fair market value” for that land, over your protests.
I’ve said before I’m very happy the land will be preserved. I’m not thrilled about the method. I don’t live near the woods, and I doubt I’d ever visit it more than once a year. That said, if the CPC decides it is a proper use of CPA funds, I can understand the rationale, and again, I’ll applaud the result, even if the don’t applaud the means. I only get one vote, and clearly few folks agree with me, either here or around the city.
But folks posting here on these two threads upset with BC for fighting back are really being unfair. If a city govt were taking your property, your home, your land, would you not fight back? Encourage your neighbors to come to your defense? Make arguments that the fair market value purchase wasn’t fair, or market, or a true purchase? Question the means? Question the economics? Appeal to fairness? Appeal to neighborly feelings?
For the folks decrying BC, put yourself in their shoes. Would you roll over? Would you simply give the land away? Or would you fight? I’d fight. I’d argue. I’d scream how unfair it was.
This is what eminent domain is. It is a TAKING. Not a sale. Not a bargain. It is the forceful taking of something that doesn’t belong to you because the community deems it a necessary evil to take such belonging for the good of the community. That is why the courts have required it be at fair market value, and allowed the person experiencing the TAKING to argue for such value. Because they aren’t being given a choice. Their community and their govt has taken that choice away from them.
We decry how communities on the North side were treated when the Pike was built. We look back with shame about Boston’s West End. Eminent Domain has a long history folks and if it is going to be a tool in our community toolbox it should be used sparingly and in times of real need.
All this is a long way of saying that calling BC a “troll” or a “hedge fund” or a bad neighbor or any of the other insults and slurs is just wrong. They aren’t the ones at fault here folks. They are just fighting back against our taking. You can, of course, disagree and argue the merits. Remark on how we can afford it and that they are wrong to say we can’t. Talk about how Webster Woods will be a resource for generations to come. All good. But do it without insults and without malice.
Again, feel free to be giddy about the result and the preservation of the woods. But it would also be nice if folks remembered the means by which we came to that result, and not compound the injury. Bad enough that we couldn’t get our act together to buy it fairly, bad enough that we had to take it, worse though to smear the injured party as we grab what we want.
Newton does not receive much in PILOT funds from BC. But hey, BC hosted the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast for years. That should count for something. ;-) It was a BILOPILOT: Breakfast In Lieu Of Payment In Lieu Of Taxes. For years, that breakfast was the most expensive meal in the city, in terms of payments that went down the lieu, so to speak.
Mr. Keady’s letter was astounding in its silence about the conservation value of the property — and in its late-to-the-party (and at least in appearance, disingenuous) concern for Newton taxpayers.
How unfortunate for Newton that former Mayor Setti Warren (BC ’93, former employee of BC’s fundraising/development office) did not pursue the opportunity to acquire Webster Woods when it was for sale. He said at the time that he would not interfere in a deal between two private parties. I did not understand that at the time, and I still don’t. Why not enter the bidding for a property being sold?
I want the city to own Webster Woods, but I wouldn’t judge BC so harshly. How would you react if the government had threatened to take your property by force?
The real story here is how badly the city bungled this by failing to buy the woods when it had the chance. Whether the city buys it from BC or takes it by eminent domain, it will have to pay a dear price now, and BC will make a handsome profit.
Our CPA fund will be worse off because of it. And even worse after all the legal fees. Meanwhile, BC and a select group of trial lawyers are all smiling at their good fortune.
@fignewtonville – I’m not judging BC harshly for objecting. I’m judging them for sending a letter with misinformation.
Not buying WW a few years ago was a terrible decision. Unfortunately, we can’t change the past. We have to work with the situation we’re in now. If BC wants to make honest arguments against the taking by eminent domain, I’m happy to hear them. But right now they’re alienating me and others by their ingenuousness.
Fig, BC’s letter was inaccurate, unnecessary, counterproductive, unconvincing, easily refuted. I initially put a few extra terms in, but deleted them in the interests of civility.
They can just take the city to court. And present themselves like polished professionals and academics. This just wasn’t thought through.
This letter was, ironically, a waste of trees on BC’s part. They created new controversy for themselves and evoked no sympathy from anyone not already firmly in their camp. The clear inaccuracies of the letter make them seem untrustworthy, which really hurts in any battle for public opinion.
Obviously this will be a long road. Boston College bought a Quarry…a Quarry in Italy so that all their buildings have the same rock facade, and no one else has those rocks.
They just tore down a building they just renovated two years ago, to build a brand new building.
Get ready for a long and costly fight.
Mike Halle:
I definitely don’t agree that all the CPA funds would be used for this one purpose, with the bonding proposal it will be stretched way into the future so I thought that portion of the letter was not accurate based on the proposal on the table to the CPC.
But the rest, pretty accurate. It is going to be more expensive than the city thinks, and more expensive than the initial appraisal. I’m still betting on 20 million total, with expenses. And BC was advocating for their position. Did you expect them to just agree with you?
Expecting BC to just sit meekly by while we conduct an eminent domain action seems like wishful thinking. This is just the first round Mike. I’m pretty sure they will handle themselves just fine in court, or settle it if they don’t feel they can win for as much money as possible.
@fig, if you look at the history of the land surrounding and including Webster Woods, it passed from private (Webster) to public (Massachusetts and the City) to private (Mishkan) to private (BC). In addition, the City also used eminent domain previously as well as challenging (unsuccessfully) the sale of land to Mishkan Tefila.
One can make a strong philosophical counterargument the sale of public lands into private ownership in this case.
https://newtonconservators.org/property/webster-woods/
I got a call today from someone doing a supposed “poll” about Webster Woods and BC. Except it was not a poll, it was just trying to convince me how bad an idea it was, including that it would cost the city $15 million in expenses on top on the $15 million sale price. A “push poll”.
Nelson:
No issue with that argument. It is a pretty good one. I just don’t fault BC for fighting back.
I would personally prefer Webster Woods to be preserved. But I’m also rooting for BC to fight it. Why?
Because I don’t want the city to do this again, and if they do, I want them and us to remember the pain of the process.
Am I rooting against my own interests? A little. But I also don’t want my neighbors on Washington Street or Walnut street to lose their homes 20 years from now without a dire need. And cities that get too used to this path scare me a little.
Enough out of me tonight. Going to bed.
@Fig – What happened with the Pike is a very different situation than this one though – there’s no one living in Webster Woods to be kicked out and BC has not yet built anything on the property that would be demolished. If they had already built an addition to the campus that the city was looking to tear down and restore to woodland I’d be more inclined to agree with the comparison but there’s nothing there yet.
I do agree that ED in general should be used very sparingly, especially when it comes to claiming residences, but this is one of the few scenarios where it seems to be justified. It’s being used to maintain existing open land that hasn’t been developed yet and we’re not tearing anything down or forcing anyone out to claim the land. We can’t just make a new Webster Woods somewhere else in the city and the stretch of land cuts right through the rest of the conservation area.
Fig,
You elect to say, “if [eminent domain] is going to be a tool in our community toolbox it should be used sparingly and in times of real need” — as if preservation of Webster Woods, a tremendously important and rare ecological resource within the built environment to be enjoyed and experienced for generations into the future, is not a “real need”?
And you go on to say you’re “rooting for BC to fight it” for reasons that really have no bearing on Webster Woods other than costing the City of Newton and its taxpayers a lot more money.
With all due respect, I’ll admit I’ve oftentimes found your V14 comments to be loquacious, but now feel they’ve become prattle.
Jim, just standing on principle. “With all due respect”, you should try it sometime… ;-)
Eminent Domain has a long history of being used for the latest “need”. What you are really saying is that the city “needs” it now, because they screwed up before, and BC now values it so much it refuses to sell. So the City declares it a need, and takes what it wants. All well and good for you, since you have determined in your infinite wisdom that the “rare ecological resource” is worth the means of taking. To you, the end is worth the means. No one is harmed! No one lives there!
But in the last month, I’ve seen many posters suggesting “taking” the Citizens bank building in Newton Centre for NewCal. Worth it, they exclaim. And perhaps it is for them. NewCal is oh so important. A true need. Perfect location!
Last year I saw Brookline attempt to take parts of Pine Manor College via eminent domain. We need it for a school they said. No other possible place to put it, they complained. The College already sold some to Tom Brady! How dare they not recognize how much we deserve their college green! The greater good! Our kids! Take the land!
It is amazing to me how quickly such a tool becomes the chosen solution of the masses and/or our government. And I’ve lived in parts of the country where urban renewal, good-hearted folks (bless their hearts), and those that knew best used eminent domain in some really unfair ways. Because they knew best. Because they had the power. Because it had been done before.
Bully for you if you love the woods. I like parks and woods too. The power of government can bulldoze through obstacles. That’s terrific if you are driving the bulldozer. Not so great if your property is the one being bulldozed.
I always thought you were our resident conservative thinker. Typically I find common ground on this issue with conservatives. At least, I do with the ones who are more than just conservative slogans…
Anyway, let’s check the record, because my posts have receipts:
I told folks immediately upon this news that it was going to cost us many more millions than folks were predicting. (the appraisal came back twice as much as many posters predicted. Marshy land they said, rock ledge makes development hard…undevelopable land they said, BC overpaid, etc, etc.)
I told folks BC would fight this, and fight both with public relations and in the courts.(hmmm…that couldn’t be happening, could it?)
I told folks that the legal costs would be higher than expected and that the city would need to get outside legal help (yep and yep)
I told folks the end result all in would be 20 million or more. (wait for it….)
And no one is computing the debt load on this acquisition. A 20 million dollar bond at 4% for 30 years will require 14 million of interest payments.
BC was always going to fight it, whether or not I was rooting for them to do so. Perhaps we’ll all learn a little bit about how eminent domain works when the owner can afford to push back on the bulldozer….
I’m not trying to punish Newton Jim or cost its taxpayers more money. But I hope they learn a lesson from this experience so that this “solution” is legal but very very rare.
Following @fig’s argument and logic (bear with me people)…
We use eminent domain and CPA to acquire Northland’s property on Needham and Oak.
Build 200 units of affordable, workforce housing (thru a non profit developer). Replace concrete and asphalt with grass and trees. Restore that bit of brook to the Charles river. Convert the current Office buildings into WeWork like shared workspaces and add to it, a Food Hall like Fenway’s “Time Out Market”. Add a splash park and outdoor skating rink and dedicate it to every Councilor who votes yes and the Mayor!
✅ Affordable housing
✅ Green space
✅ Less residential traffic
✅ Make Needham Street a vibrant destination
How can anyone object to such awesomeness?!?! ;-)
My senior friends and I feel like the city had their opportunity to buy and they passed. What gives them the authority to take it back for fair value? BC should sell it for $40mil. That would teach the City well.
I’m with Fig on this one.
How quickly we forget we were digging out of a recession, building three new school, renovated 3/4 firehouses, and acquiring another major piece of land. At the time, Newton didn’t have the funding to appropriately fund compensation for its employees and we’re still trying to dig out of that hole 10 years later.
I’m with Fig. Eminent domain has ugly results and in this case, the ugly will come in the form of unknown litigation costs that could go on for years – money just gone, to no benefit for the community. Please remember this is the highest priority for one activist, vocal group in the city. That doesn’t make it the highest priority for everyone. Making BC the evil doer, accusing them of nefarious deeds for fighting to keep what they legitimately bought isn’t going over well in other parts of the community. I’d suggest that supporters tone it down a bit, maybe even try reaching out to support other people’s concerns.
And please, return to the bargaining table to hammer out a deal both sides can live with.
I’m a member of the Community Preservation Committee, and also manage the Newton Conservators website. Thanks to @Nelson for posting a link to my analysis of the financial impact of Newton’s buying the woods: https://newtonconservators.org/webster-woods-can-the-city-afford-it/
I also had a hand in a history of Webster Woods written from the perspective of Edwin Webster, who in 1916 donated 100 acres of forest (including the 25 acres now owned by BC) to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for use as conservation land: https://newtonconservators.org/webster-letter/ I think the history is quite relevant to the decision now facing the City Council.
Fig,
Favoring a “lesson” more than Webster Woods?
(More prattle, points scored and self-praise.)
Jane,
Of course a negotiated deal without eminent domain would be preferable.
I don’t believe anyone here favoring preservation of Webster Woods is opposing that.
I read the letter from Thomas Keady and have one question. In the third paragraph he references potential appraisal risk, implying that BC will take the City to court to litigate the $15.2 million City of Newton appraisal on the basis that the property is being undervalued. He further implies that if the College succeeds in getting the courts to accept a higher appraised value that the City will be on the hook for the difference. Is this a valid threat? If so, how do we assess the likelihood of success in thinking about the ultimate cost of this acquisition by the City? Thanks in advance for any clarification here.
I urge everyone to read the “Letter from Edwin Webster” that Dan Brody mentioned above.
It is a great breezy piece of writing and tells an amazing legal history of this property and shows eminent domain being used for good and ill throughout its history. The most startling part of the story is that a family purposefully acquired various property to put together a large parcel of contiguous woods, then donated it all to the state’s Park Commission as land that would be protected in perpetuity as conservation land. Nearly before their body’s were cold in the grave the state began peeling off pieces of this ‘conservation land” via eminent domain for various development projects – Congregation Mishkan Tefila, the Chestnut Hill mall, parking lot for whats now ‘The Street’, A Mass College of Art campus, a 25 acre piece to a developer.
To fignewtonville’s point, eminent domain has been both the primary means by which these public minded peoples’ bequest has been undermined AND the primary means by which the City and others have fought the incursions – sometimes successfully and sometimes not.
Definitely read the letter. It’s an eye-opening tale that shows that today’s fight with BC is merely the latest installment in a long sordid history, where eminent domain has played the role of both the villain and protector of the Webster family’s legacy.
Jerry:
And I’d be against that type of eminent domain as well. Folks tend to love the beast until it bites their own leg off.
How about this one, for the Right Size Newton folks? City has an urgent need for affordable housing. City sees 2 older homes, bordering a big lot that a developer has bought. Neither home is willing to sell. Developer promises a 6 story building, with space for a new preschool (insert favorite city cause here) if city buys the two buildings via eminent domain. Matt Lai was joking. But the CPA funds have 1/3 dedicated to affordable. Let’s bond over 20 million and do a joint venture with Korff. Or with Star Market!
Webster woods is lovely. It should be protected and in city hands. But we should not ignore the fact that acquiring it in this way is messy. And certainly not transferable to other problems.
Jim, that’s me I guess. You got me. All purple prattle and points scored. Purple prattle, points and principles. Love the alliteration. And I believe in the lesson based on hard experience. Maybe actually try and respond to the point sometime… ;-)
The letter is very informative and near its conclusion states, “The 2016 sale of the 25 acres to Boston College put an essential part of this gift to the public in immediate danger.” In that regard, unless this commenter is missing something, it does not mention perhaps the most tragic and devastating — and now very very costly — fact which has brought us to this point. That is, the Mayor of the City of Newton in 2015 refused an offer to purchase the said 25 acres, despite the reported willingness of the then Newton Board of Aldermen to proceed with the purchase.
It’s understood we can’t change the past. However, there being no apparent satisfactory explanation for this, any information on this would be relevant to complete the history.
Fig,
I see no purpose, nor do I have interest in, reviewing the use of eminent domain throughout history and beyond Webster Woods in the future.
If you’d like to discuss the use of eminent domain for academic purposes, I’d be happy to do that, but there seems no reason to clutter V14 with that back-and-forth.
Was Matt joking?
I would not support taking private homes via eminent domain so that another private entity can develop the land, even with the benefit of additional parkland (to the benefit of the general public) and a new elementary school (to the benefit of a few).
Some folks have argued for taking the developed land next to Webster Woods. I would be against that. It’s a shame it was sold to Mishkan Tefila at all, but what’s done is done.
(1) Developed land is fungible, you can transform it from one type to another (house to parkland to apartment building, etc.). Natural woodland, once developed, is gone forever.
(2) Webster Woods is open to all, so the benefit isn’t limited.
(3) Taking land for affordable housing is government picking and choosing winners out of a private market. IANAL, but from what Kenneth Kimmell mentioned at a meeting, the City is well within eminent domain law.
Why has the mayor created such a clear conflict of interest for herself?She lives right next to the Webster Woods. Is she concerned her $4.5m house will go down in value if the land is ever developed? The old listing sheet for her house certainly touts the proximity.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/163-Suffolk-Rd-Chestnut-Hill-MA-02467/56316862_zpid/
If she was concerned about accessible open space, how about we close down the 76 acre GOLF COURSE the city owns and plant trees there? Or we could swap the BC Webster land for the golf course which is closer to their campus anyways. If we’re serious about increasing open space (which should be way lower on our priorities list anyways, given how low density our village centers are), then we shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing golf. A golf course is the least accessible form of open space imaginable and yet we have 76 acres of the stuff.
Mr. Butch,
Are you suggesting that the City of Newton and the vast majority of residents of the City of Newton, who fervently want to preserve Webster Woods, should be penalized, precluded and/or prohibited from doing so because the current Mayor happens to live nearby Webster Woods?
What I want to know is the precise reason the former Mayor four short years ago turned down an offer to preserve Webster Woods, on terms many millions of dollars less than what is anticipated now.
Jim-
We were just pulling out of a deep recession.
-The city was in the process of building three new schools.
-The city was renovating 3/4 fire stations and upgrading dated expensive first responder equipment.
-The city was buying Aquinas.
-Due to the recession, city and school employee compensation was severely curtailed.
The city is still trying to dig out of the last hole and in case you haven’t heard, it’s been a bear of a process. I can’t even imagine where we’d be if one more major capital acquisition had taken place when city finances were just getting back on track.
If we’re alright with taking privately owned property for the sake of creating more open space, I propose we acquire Ruthanne Fuller’s house on Suffolk Road and preserve it in perpetuity as open space. The city should have grave concerns that, in the future, Mayor Fuller will develop the site and permanently remove the open space on her lawn.
Jane,
Apparently the then Board of Alderman were ready to proceed, it only being the Mayor who opposed. Moreover, the projects you cite were not CPA funded. Webster Woods is CPA funded. And finally, the recession, by 2015, was well behind.
Do you possess some further specific or documented information on this vis a vis the former Mayor’s refusal?
@Jim
Setti didn’t necessarily oppose. It appears he didn’t want to pay either.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2015/10/07/newton-moves-protect-temple-land-from-development/cl1u8G5eWSedk1O8Ydo8DP/story.html
@Mr Butch – Did you read the letter about the history of the property linked to above. The story is much more complicated than you are describing. It involves the state in five different instances taking portions of the donated public Webster Woods, that it had pledged to the donor to conserve in perpetuity, and handing it over to private interests.
In the case of the property that BC now owns, the state transferred a parcel for the temple and parking lot to be built and also included the disputed strip of property through the middle of Webster Woods specifically so the Temple would have a corridor through which an electric line could be run since there wasn’t power on Hammond Pond Parkway.
The city was willing to maintaining that status quo – i.e. BC retains and builds what they want on the already built portion of the land (temple and parking lot) and retains access to power lines through Webster Woods. BC was not willing to legally bind themselves to those terms and is fighting for the right to build into the woods.
To be clear, the dispute between the city and BC is not over the former temple property. It is only over preventing future development on the power-line strip through the middle of the woods that the Webster family entrusted to the state for preservation.
Lost in all of this is how the state of Mass so blatantly and egregiously violated their obligations to protect this land as soon as the Webster family donors were in the grave. Given the state’s woeful stewardship, I’m grateful that the City now and in the past have taken up much of the slack every time more of the original bequested property comes under further siege.
Simon,
Thanks for linking the Globe article.
I note that it states that the mayor said “I am committed to working with the eventual owner of the property to preserve the conservation area for passive recreation.” This means the mayor’s statement of that commitment was made BEFORE BC’s acquisition, saying he would “work with the EVENTUAL owner” [emphasis added], meaning not YET acquired.
According to that same Globe article, the “Aldermen…want[ed] the mayor to explore options, including putting conservation restrictions on the land, purchasing all or a portion of the property, or taking the land by eminent domain if necessary, to prevent future development…” Each alternative would have required action taken by the City of Newton BEFORE acquisition by BC. As well, the Board of Aldermen’s passed a unanimous resolution to that effect, which vote came BEFORE any decision by the synagogue on any sale to BC
Yet the Mayor, in spite of what the Aldermen wanted, including admonition by at least one Alderman not to “blow it…and do nothing,” in fact DID NOTHING (to preserve the Webster Woods acreage).
Again, WHY NOTHING, since the Board of Aldermen was committed, as the article states, and “considered the property’s wooded open space off limits to development”?
If anyone thinks that land is only worth $15mm they are sorely mistaken. Look at comparable sales in the area, this will cost Newton twice that at the end of the day, not counting legal fees.
It has been acknowledged by many that former Mayor Warren should have acquired the woods when it was available for purchasing in 2015/2016.
Peter,
Bruce Henderson comments above, “How unfortunate for Newton that former Mayor Setti Warren (BC ’93, former employee of BC’s fundraising/development office) did not pursue the opportunity to acquire Webster Woods when it was for sale. He said at the time that he would not interfere in a deal between two private parties.”
In spite of what the above Boston Globe article states, would it seem that the above could have been, at least in part, an explanation? And if so, what would have been the position of the then Board of Aldermen, especially if cognizant of a statement of non-interference which Bruce attributes to the then Mayor?
Honest question, how much more open space do we need in Chestnut Hill? This is perhaps the lowest density, greenest part of Newton and we think the best allocation of ~$15m for open space is here, rather than Nonantum or Newton Corner, where they have no real barrier between residential streets and the Pike?
When the mayoral election was held in 2017, it sort of boiled down to supporting the working class guy from Nonantum (Lennon) versus the management consultant from Chestnut Hill (Fuller). We were told it shouldn’t matter that she sent her kids to private school, or that she downsized from the $10m house to the $4m house for political reasons, or that she donated extensively to George Bush, Mitt Romney, or John McCain. We were told that none of that would guide her decisions, and she’d focus on all the 13 villages equally. When her largest proposal is to spend money in her own backyard, it gives credence to those who worried about her.
Mr Butch, it appears your name has a typo!
Blatant lies. No FEC donations from Fuller to those Republicans you mentioned. Only to Markey and Ayanna Pressley
Mr Butch, would you be so kind as to reveal your real name so that we can look up your political donations?
Or maybe his BC affiliation?
Not giving my real name but I haven’t donated to any campaigns ever and am not an alumni of any Boston/Newton area schools.
Also, if you go on the FEC website and remove the date filter you’ll see she donated the following:
$200 to John McCain 2008 Inc. on 7/25/2008
$2,100 to McCain-Palin Compliance Fund Inc. on 7/25/2008
$2,300 to McCain Victory 2008 on 7/25/2008
$200 to Romney for President Inc. on 3/30/2007
$500 to Obama for America on 2/27/2007
$2,100 to Romney for President Inc. on 2/21/2007
$2,100 to John McCain 2008 Inc. on 2/7/2007
Also:
$10,000 to the Massachusetts Republican State Congressional Committee on 6/13/2005
$2,000 to Bush-Cheney ’04 Inc. on 4/9/2004
@MrButch – The preservation of Webster Woods was definitely a talked about issue in the 2017 mayoral election. The Newton Conservators wrote to all seven candidates in the preliminary election, asking their position. Six candidates replied, and all six said that they supported preserving the woods. Scott Lennon, who lost in the general election to Ruthanne Fuller, wrote that “permanently protecting Webster Woods will be a top priority for my administration.”
Likewise the City Council unanimously endorsed a resolution calling on the mayor to preserve “the recreation and conservation character” of the land in October 2015. It appears a wide swath of the community, and the virtually the entire Newton Conservators strongly support the preservation of Webster Woods.
Trying to paint this issue as the mayor pulling a fast one to shore up her personal property values is seriously misleading at best, blatantly dishonest at worst.
You may disagree on the merits, why not make your case on the merits?
I thought I made my case earlier. We have 76 acres of inaccessible open space as is (golf course). Before we start acquiring more land, we should take a look in the mirror and ask if we are best using the land we currently have.
I also think there is a difference between permanently protecting Webster Woods and seizing it through eminent domain. A zoning or deed restriction could be filed, we could pass a city ordinance, basically anything other than spending over $15 million
Also, do you really think any candidate was going to say, no let’s develop the woods into high density housing? They were trying to win over the support of the conservators, why would they even respond if they weren’t going to pander? I’m not saying Lennon was perfect, but I don’t think he would have resorted to eminent domain and that makes him better in my book.
Mr. Butch,
Securing a deed restriction — legally an easement (or negative easement) — is an interest in the land and would have to be conveyed from BC to Newton in the same way that a fee simple estate is conveyed from BC to Newton.
If you’re saying or implying that in lieu of a fee conveyance, BC would be willing to convey an easement to Newton, I think that would get the job done (and would in all likelihood cost Newton significantly less money). Do you have connections with BC, or are you in a position to transmit an offer by Newton to acquire an easement in lieu of fee?
(Insofar as zoning, it legally couldn’t be that extensive as to essentially prohibit any development, so that’s a non-starter.)
Looks like the Mayor has contributed to both Democrats and Republicans – I stand corrected. Oh well. Doesn’t diminish from her efforts to save Webster Woods.
Lennon isn’t mayor, playing hypotheticals is a useless waste of time. Just like the billionaire who lives next door to Webster Woods and is willing to pay for the entirety of Webster Woods and then some. If I win the lottery big I’ll pay for acquiring Webster Woods myself – you heard it hear first.
BC knows eminent domain for this piece of land was a risk, and they were willing to take. Woodland being sold for fair market value via ED – win for BC. Bulldozing the woodland and cutting out the heart of this conservation area for whatever they want to build – also a win for BC.
I don’t have any contact at BC but I do think securing an easement would be a far better path to keeping the woods as woods, and I imagine BC would be open to it. Someone with connections should honestly reach out, as we’re about to head down a boondoggle of a long path. Or we could just not do this at all because, again, it is extremely unnecessary.
BC already has plans to develop the entire woodland – this was mentioned and signed under perjury by the lawsuit BC filed against Newton CPC. An easement restricting development wouldn’t achieve their goals of developing the woodland.
“signed by perjury” – what I meant to say was Kenneth Kimmell’s letter to the councilors:
“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.”
This statement, signed under pains and penalties of perjury and filed in a legal document, removes any doubt–the woods are at risk. Boston College has now admitted that it does not intend to preserve the woods, but instead intends to develop “the entire property.” And because Boston College
has substantial resources and protection from local zoning afforded by the state “Dover” amendment, this could be mean cutting down thousands of trees, leveling hills, and paving over large portions of fragile and very beautiful woodlands. The City would be largely powerless to stop this.
Nelson,
I’m truly impressed, as it appears to be the case from this thread, that Mayor Fuller contributed to Bush-Cheney in 2004 and McCain-Palin in 2008.
Mayor Fuller’s stock certainly goes up in my book!
Jim et al – Every candidate will say s/he favors the purchase of Webster Woods. However, that position was stated without a discussion of the ramifications of a lengthy legal battle with BC.
As for CPA funds in the past, if memory serves me right the city had no difficulty appropriately spending the funds before the possible purchase of Webster Woods. That’s where the trickle down effect comes in. If projects can no longer be funded with CPA funds because Webster Woods is the priority, what will NOT happen? Because, to be clear, those projects that would otherwise be paid for with CPA funds will not be paid for out of the general funds. They will just not happen.
Which brings me to my final point. Jerry says that a wide swathe of the community supports this purchase, and my response is that the wide swathe for the most part lives on one side of the city. Other parts of the city very legitimately have other priorities and it would be helpful if that were acknowledged or at the very least not demeaned.
Nelson – An anonymous poster insisting that another anonymous poster reveal his/her real name is…a new one on V14.
Dan Brody has analyzed whether we can afford this acquisition: https://newtonconservators.org/webster-woods-can-the-city-afford-it/
Short answer is yes. If the price increases, which it may, I imagine the analysis can be redone with the higher number.
@Jane, it’s relatively easy to figure out who I am – how many Nelsons in Newton you think there are?
When someone starts posting pretty extreme comments, likely because they are anonymous, there should be a some way to hold them accountable.
Thank you to all of the commenters who have posted links to information about Webster Woods, both the land’s history and the computations of how CPA funds will be bonded with money left to fund other projects. Very interesting and informative.
With time travel not available to all, it’s not possible to go back to 2015 to buy Webster Woods. We have to deal with where we are today with BC owning and planning to develop the Woods. Other avenues have already been explored in negotiations with BC. I was hoping that the city might get BC to place the Woods in conservation. Obviously that won’t happen now.
Back when the subject of taking the Woods by eminent domain was first reported, there were many in Newton who did not support the “taking.” So I’m not sure about the wide support for it now. Even if CPA bonding means CPA funds will still be available, there are other major expenses that will be incurred by the city. As I said at the time, BC has deep pockets and will fight ED to the end.
With all of the other projects/proposals that require funding, a new police complex, a new senior center, a Carr/Horace Mann renovation, other new schools needed, roads and sidewalks, maintaining what Newton already owns, etc. I’m not sure fighting BC is the best use of city funds. Personally I’m wondering where all of this funding is coming from and what won’t get done because of other projects such as this one.
I think preserving Webster Woods would have been great if Mayor Warren had purchased it in 2015 but now in 2019, there are many other pressing needs. Unless attorneys are working for the city pro bono, lol, the city will be spending major funds the Mayor says we don’t have unless it’s for one of her projects.
CPC funding includes legal fees:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=99951
There are at least 9 Nelsons in Newton based on public records. Probably more who don’t own homes.
I’m with Fig on this one also. I got the letter and i live somewhat near where Webster woods is located. I would like to see the city attempt to acquire WW, but I’m not an eminent domain fan, especially since we already had a chance to buy WW.
Not once have I read or heard anything
about the CPA tax going from 1 percent to 3 percent. It’s pretty obvious the CPA tax would have to go up to 3 percent to fund this project…. Remember, THE CPA IS A SURCHARGE ON OUR REAL ESTATE TAXES, SO EVERYONE IN NEWTON WHO OWNS PROPERTY WILL PAY THIS TAX (probably in perpituity),
so BC is right that the project will be costly to city residents…
What about seniors or people on fixed incomes? What about the nonsense about “affordable housing”? Who exactly is Newton going to be “affordable” for?
Anyone in city government care to address CPA tax increase
or can any of the members of the CPA committee do so?
What about the override that the city will be pushing in the next year or so?,
does that matter?
There are still a lot of questions that my wallet wants answers to, and that city residents should be asking.
I think BC hit the nail on the head with the almost guaranteed high cost of the purchase of WW to city residents.
If the project is that important,
perhaps the city should shed one of the other properties that the CPA is now funding…
Does anyone know the total legal costs to the city of Newton for the Land Court case with Boston College that ran from 1996 (submission of application to the board of aldermen) until August 2003 ruling? It may help with a fuller (no pun intended) accounting of costs for acquisition of the land.
http://masscases.com/cases/app/58/58massappct794.html
Nelson, MrButch may not agree with your positions, but you did call him a liar and he was being accurate, even if I didn’t agree with his overall point.
Overall though, let’s not make this personal. Even if we are anonymous, it isn’t all that unusual that there would be differences of opinion on a purchase as big as this one.
Also Nelson, for the record I thought your name was a reference from the Simpsons. Nelson Muntz. HA HA. (look it up)
True, that was my mistake, and I indicated that I was wrong.
I said blatant lies and didn’t call him a liar – maybe that’s a distinction without a difference.
Some suggestions are really bad though and seem like they’re made in bad faith – they should be called out as such.
Between seizing Mayor Fuller’s house and seizing the BC property, I believe the former would have less harmful consequences to the city as a whole.
BC’s position vis-a-vis developing within Webster Woods has certainly evolved. Back in 2015 when sale of the land was in the works, BC reassured both the city and the temple that they would preserve the woods.
From the Newton Tab Oct 5, 2016
From the more recent court filings mentioned above it is clear that BC has no intention on honoring their earlier reassurances about preserving the woods.
Jerry, perhaps. But if I was BC I’d also need to keep my options open, and the appraised value will be less if they declare it is not going to be developed. It seems unfair to force them into a legal debate on value, and then wonder why they are trying to maximize that value for the purposes of the court.
So it could be they were lying, or it could be they need to protect their interests and millions of value in a eminent domain appraisal battle. Or both.
Say it with me folks…more than one thing can be true… ;-)
Again, not defending BC, just trying to be fair to all sides. And to keep reminding folks why eminent domain is horrible policy.
As for who this benefits the most, it benefits close abutters the most. Of course it does. I don’t really care though. If someone found me a tract of land on the north side will similar attributes, I’ll argue for it to be bought and protected as well. I don’t find location a persuasive argument when the overall public can access and it is a public good. On that I agree with Jim/Nelson and others.
@fignewtonville – As I understand the current situation, the only reason that the city went to the admittedly difficult proposed eminent domain taking of the property is that BC would not accept any other legally binding restriction against future development in the woods.
While BC absolutely has the legal right to do that, it does seem to indicate that the they were now reneging on the (non-legally binding) assurances they gave the city and the temple at the time of the sale.
Jerry & Fig,
Re BC’s ‘assurances’ back in 2015, THE CITY OF NEWTON DROPPED THE BALL! Those ‘assurances’ mean nothing unless there was some recordable interest. (And I don’t think there’s even anything in writing expressing or even implying any legal obligation on the part of BC!)
Where was the Mayor? Where was the City’s Solicitor’s office?
Marti,
For whatever it’s worth, as a retired 42 year federal government attorney (U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) in part working in lands, conservation and land acquisitions, I’d be willing to help the City pro bono.
What I find interesting is that when the state sold Mishkan Tefila the land, why sell 25 acres and only develop a certain portion of it?
From the Edwin Webster “letter”:
“I wondered why 25 acres of land was sold, even though the temple building and parking lots took up less than a third of its new property. I found the answer in a 1958 history of the temple: “As for telephone and electric service, the most economical way was to go westerly over our land to Elgin Street and in order to enable the Edison Co. to string its wires we had to cut a road through virgin forest for a distance of 1600 feet.” (Temple Mishkan Tefila: a history 1858-1958)”
So now that it’s in BC’s possession (for now), they are going to take advantage and develop the entire portion.
When Mishkan Tefila had the land, they didn’t develop all of it (to their credit – they could have). Now that BC has it, they’re going to take advantage of this golden opportunity.
If you had an undeveloped parcel of land and someone was going to take it away from you, would you not make every effort to make the land appear more valuable (developable) to the courts? That’s is a shame because it’s so divisive. BC is a compact campus with open space the only thing lacking. WW is probably more valuable to them as a college left as it is.
Apropos of nothing: Nelson, when you don’t use your whole name, you’re referred to as an anonymous poster. A few of your friends know who you are, but the rest of us are in the dark. Think Blog Party – first week in December!
Jane,
I don’t believe anonymous posters will show up at the Blog Party. Fig has already posted that he’ll be out of Town.
I wish I could make it. When my kids get a bit older and are out of Newton schools I’ll likely drop my anonymous nature. That is my main motivation for staying anonymous. I already embarrass them just by being me. You think my various puns, poems, and purple prose are annoying here? Just think if you were related to me!
In all seriousness, the last time someone confronted me about my identity on this blog they scared the crap out of me when I was with one of my kids. I don’t think they meant to do so, but they did. So I’m staying anonymous for now. Sometimes folks get really angry and shout, and frankly this blog is just a way to talk to folks and build a little community. I don’t have the bandwidth to have these conversations in person with my kids with me, or explain why the nice stranger is shouting at me, or grabbing onto the stroller until I engage in conversation.
Maybe with the pot stores opening up folks will get more mellow. ;-)
Also, I like my handle and it cracks me up to refer to myself as Figgy. Every time. Gotta catch those smiles while I can.
Jane,
As I said. (see above)
@Jim Epstein
I think you’d be surprised. I’ve met anonymous posters at the previous ones we’ve had.
Jerry,
That’s good to hear.
Do they go back to anonymity after the Party?
Yup. Just write “Lurker” on your name tag, throw on some Groucho Marx glasses, and you’re good to go! (Shoutout to Schlock..)
If someone is going to pretend to be me, please wear groucho marx glasses and a big hat.
But I really am out of town…
Someone last time provided a hilarious recap.
Please raise a glass for me. One of my favorite toasts is from Robert Burns, a bottle and an honest man:
Here’s a bottle and an honest man –
What would ye wish for mair, man.
Wha kens, before his life may end,
What his share may be o’ care, man.
So catch the moments as they fly,
And use them as ye ought, man.
Believe me, happiness is shy,
And comes not aye when sought, man.
Or, from the Irish:
“May neighbors respect you, trouble neglect you, the angels protect you, and heaven accept you.”
Cheers to all,
Figgy
@Jim Epstein –
First, thank you for your offer to help pro bono. That’s being a real mensch.
Second, I’ve introduced myself to some posters when I’ve met them in person. I still leave off my last name because anyone can find this blog plus I have some online presence (less than I used to) where I’d rather not advertise my home address. If I’m feeling well enough, I’d love to attend the Blog Party.
By the way, for those suggesting a zoning remedy to keep Boston College from developing Webster Woods, please know that BC is largely immune from zoning controls due to the Dover Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_Amendment
As such a different solution is required.
@Fig,
I’d argue that Webster Woods is a highly inaccessible site unless you have a car. The closest you can get is a bus stop over a half mile away, and the walk is along Hammond Pond Parkway, where cars regularly go twice the speed limit, there is inadequate lighting, pedestrian, or bike infrastructure.
Chris,
And beyond the zoning issue you raise, as I implied above, any zoning essentially to prevent all development would be tantamount to a “taking” and be rejected by the courts.
There’s no way around it, the City will have to acquire either the property in fee or an easement over the property.
Mr. Butch,
The latest issues you raise are largely irrelevant to the vital need to preserve Webster Woods.
@MrButch, I agree with @Jim Epstein that access is irrelevant to the need to preserve the woods. Even so, the woods are a short 11 minute walk from the Newton Centre T stop:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Newton+Centre,+Newton,+MA/42.3272453,-71.1843586/@42.3273848,-71.1903504,17z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x89e3827877f75171:0xebaa305f0541ff85!2m2!1d-71.1924828!2d42.3295392!1m0!3e2
The public access argument is such a red herring. You can park your car in any one of these locations to walk to the BC property without having to cross Hammond Pond Parkway: Warren St (close to T as well), Elgin St, Madoc St, Carlisle St and the Chestnut Hill Towers and mall. I don’t believe anyone who’s really interested in the woods has ever had a problem getting there.
@David I didn’t realize you could enter through Elgin St. That’s pretty nice since it is a short walk from the T. Doesn’t change my view that this is a terrible, terrible idea but fair enough, you can access the massive waste of money without a car.
Also, and this is just a wild hair, but maybe we SHOULD be encouraging development on this site, given that it is so close to the train. Certainly we have a serious lack of affordable housing. Maybe we should be building transit oriented affordable housing to address the fact that right now we are in the middle of a housing and climate crisis and it seems all we can focus on is buying land right by a train stop and permanently stopping people from living there.
If everyone believes that the city is right in acquiring land for its own purposes through eminent domain, shouldn’t we be encouraging the city to use that land to address the the most urgent issues facing us, rather than pander to the small but vocal conservation folks who, based on census data for Newton, likely own two cars and live in a single family house
No.
Taking land via eminent domain just to bulldoze the trees and pave over it for affordable housing is an awful, awful idea. I would actually prefer that BC keep the land and develop it in this ridiculous hypothetical.
Why is it a bad idea? Do we not have a housing and climate crisis? A dense affordable housing development addresses both those issues.
Taking land from private entities and giving it to other private entities is government picking winners and losers. That’s generally a bad idea. If you need more info, feel free to do your own economic and historical research
If the government takes the land and partners with a nonprofit housing developer, or even a mixed income developer, the winners will be:
BC – Are paid for their land
Newton – Get new tax revenue and further their goal of building new housing – which Mayor Fuller has stated is a goal of hers
Local Businesses – New customers
Developer – Makes money by building new homes and creates 100’s of jobs
New Residents – get to live in Newton, rather than commuting longer distances and burning more fossil fuel
Existing Residents – new neighbors, friends, & classmates with more diverse backgrounds
The Planet – lower CO2 emissions
If we take the land and just keep it as woods, the winners will be:
BC – Are paid for their land
50-100 Regular users of the woods: Will have a longer hiking trail