Gloria Gavris posted one of those comments that seems worth turning into a separate thread:
Have 3 minutes? Send Father Leahy a quick email & tell him you support the eminent domain taking and want Webster Woods protected as open space for generations to come.
As a Boston College alumni and past President of the Chestnut Hill Association, I just sent an email to BC President Father Leahy. I was told this is the best email to reach him. It is his Executive Administrative Assistant.
Subject Line: I Support Newton’s Eminent Domain Taking
Wanting Webster Woods to be protected and taking it by eminent domain are separate issues. You can support one and not the other.
I don’t understand why BC would support an eminent domain taking of WW. They would’ve just sold it if they wanted to let go of it. They may, however, be convinced to preserve the open space part of the property if the city and residents presented a persuasive case.
Picking up Support Newton Educators signs on the north and south side of the city today – once again, lawn signs tell a story about the two Newtons. It troubling that we can’t seem to get past this problem.
Thank you for your thoughtful post. What we do (the plan) and how we do it (execution) are often totally separate components. In general it feels that Newton faces many investment decisions in the near future and our reliance on purely leveraging property tax revenue may well be an approach that is not completely effective for our city. We have many unique demographics relative to most other cities of our population size in MA.
I am new to this forum and curious to confirm your comment on the lawn signs. When you say “two Newtons” did you mean by location or by perspective on our public schools or something all together different?
Jane Frantz,
Obviously the City would like to acquire (or protect by acquiring an easement) Webster Woods by negotiation — and undoubtedly will endeavor that route first. Only if that fails, would Newton have to employ eminent domain, meaning the City would take it, and haggle with BC over the price in court, ultimately leaving it to a judge to rule on amount. Jane, are you suggesting that if negotiations fail, Newton should not take Webster Woods by eminent domain and abandon securing protection of Webster Woods?
Dear Father Leahy,
Please consider scripture to save Webster Woods.
1 Corinthians 10:26, FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.
Genesis 1:11-12, Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
BC has been very clear that they plan to develop the Woods. Unless they agree otherwise, Newton must take the Woods by eminent domain.
The mistake was not buying the entire property when it was for sale in 2015/16. I’m at a loss as to why the City Council didn’t push hard enough with former Mayor Warren to make it happen.
@Peter Karg
That depends on who’s talking to them when.
Yes, recently they’ve been pretty clear that they intend to develop the woods. When they acquired the property though they were assuring everyone that they had no such plans.
Here are a few telling excerpts:
Peter,
Here is some history vis a vis City Council (then Board of Aldermen), Mayor Warren, and Webster Woods. This was addressed previously in part on V14, https://village14.com/2019/11/18/boston-college-concern-trolls-on-webster-woods/#axzz66SIf98tS
There is a Boston Globe October 7, 2015 article, https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2015/10/07/newton-moves-protect-temple-land-from-development/cl1u8G5eWSedk1O8Ydo8DP/story.html
That article 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).
Thereafter I asked on the V14 thread, 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”?
Bruce Henderson’s comment on that thread perhaps sheds some light on this, where he wrote, “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.”
Thus, I then posed on that thread, 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?
Then on that same thread, Jerry Reilly cited a Newton TAB Oct 5, 2016:
“Boston College has indicated it is open to working with the city to preserve the undeveloped portion of land the university purchased from Congregation Mishkan Tefila earlier this year, Mayor Setti Warren said Wednesday.
“Leaders of Mishkan Teflia repeatedly said they trusted BC to be responsible stewards of the property.
“Boston College is well aware of the interest in protecting the undeveloped areas of the property and we trust that they will be a good partner in working with the City on this matter at the appropriate time,” the congregation’s president, Paul Gershkowitz, said in an email last fall, before the sale was final.”
That led me to comment on those BC ‘assurances’ back in 2015, wherein I stated “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!)”
The Board of Aldermen enacted, as the Globe article points out, a “UNANIMOUS RESOLUTION” for the City to acquire or protect Webster Woods — leaving the precise legal mode to the Mayor.
Yet, as I then commented, “Where was the Mayor? Where was the City’s Solicitor’s office?”
Either the Mayor intentionally dropped the ball, or he felt he could sit back and trust BC’s commitment, not wanting to “interfere in a deal between two private parties”, but without receiving a recordable interest or written commitment before that “deal” was consummated .
And, after the legal screw up — that is, the Mayor thinking he didn’t have to do anything until after the conveyance to BC “working with the eventual owner” — sat silent.
You be the judge. (But I wouldn’t fault the Board of Aldermen/City Council.)
@Jim – I get the picture. The finger gets pointed in the direction of a former Mayor of Newton.
In the spirit of Village14, wouldn’t the Webster Woods site make a phenomenal location for a mega mixed use, transit oriented development?
The site is bisected by the green line; has easy access to the route 9 bus lines; has easy access to Boston, and balances some of the city’s Northside/Southside development split.
Surely you would have to import a fair amount of fill to eliminate the wetland components, but Back Bay was built on a swamp and that seems to have turned out alright.
The negative environmental impact is more than outweighed by the transcendental threat that is climate change.
Let’s not be small minded and try to preserve “old” Newton for the snobs in Chestnut Hill; we should develop the parcel(s), add to the tax base, and create the density that is appropriate for such a near-urban location!
Donald R,
Great idea, and along those same lines, let’s also develop all feasible greenspace and parks in Newton into mixed use with dense housing because “the negative environmental impact is more than outweighed by the transcendental threat that is climate change…[and which] is appropriate for such a near-urban location.” And certainly Newtonites should be prepared to make this sacrifice in quality of life because of the “transcendental threat that is climate change.”
The research shows that negotiations, either for BC to restrict the property as conservation land or for BC to willingly sell the property to Newton, have already occurred during Mayor Fuller’s term. Newton, if it wants to keep the woods as they are, has been forced into a “friendly taking – at fair market value”, from BC.
I support this mainly because the entire woods was deeded to the public by Mr Webster when he died and after that the parts of it that have been developed were taken by eminent domain, in addition to
BC reneging on it’s unwritten deal to preserve that part of the land it purchased but has said recently that it plans to develop the area .
Reflecting on Mayor Warren’s missed opportunity to pursue its purchase is like rocking in a rocking chair – expending a lot of energy but getting nowhere.
Marti,
Not missed opportunity. More like thwarted opportunity.
@Jim;
I agree that all viable green space in the Garden City should be converted to its highest and best (/most dense) use.
While some may argue that the South Side proletariat needs some green space as a recreational respite from their dreary jobs as corporate attorneys and portfolio managers, I believe that their homes on Cape Cod or in the countryside provide sufficient opportunity for fresh air.
Any person who does not want Webster Woods developed must be a climate change denier.
Save the planet; pave Webster Woods!
It’s unfortunate Setti Warren was so close with Boston College that it muddied his perspective. The City of Newton should have bought Webster Woods the minute it came on the market. It was a total no-brainer.
Now, the City must take the property by eminent domain to assure it will be preserved. The Dover Amendment would allow BC to develop the woodlands without many of the local zoning restrictions that would normally apply. In my opinion, there’s no question BC would develop the property, it’s simply a question of when.
Full disclosure requires mentioning I live 3 blocks from BC and just down the street from Webster Woods. I’ve lived here for decades, and view Boston College as a very good neighbor. BC does an excellent job of mitigating neighborhood impacts, and they are a genuine asset to the Newton Community.
The problem is that Boston College has a lopsided arrangement with the City. BC gets far more than it gives. They get all of Newton’s public services and pay zero taxes. I might view an eminent domain taking differently if the property were owned by a taxpayer.
Also, Boston College was aware of the Save Webster Woods movement, and knew that a new mayor might view that property differently than Setti Warren. They will receive fair market value for the property. I think BC is making a mistake not cooperating with this process. If Mayor Fuller decides to pay hardball, it will be BC that comes out the loser. The Mayor has tremendous leverage in this situation.
Mike Striar: You appear to be knowledgeable about the PILOT issue. Do you happen to have numbers comparing BC to other institutions in the area? This may be a good topic for a guest post.
I’m suggesting that the city return to the bargaining table because a negotiated deal will be less expensive for the city in the long run. I’m particularly concerned about using $740,000 + of CPA funding to pay for legal fees and suspect the + may become ++++. That money would be far better spent on other projects that CPA typically funds.
I oppose eminent domain unless it’s a friendly taking.
@Newtoner, this TAB article from 3 years ago has relevant info about Newton’s experience with PILOT payments. It says that Boston College has paid Newton a $100K PILOT annually since 1985, donates to Newton community groups (a total of $26,650 in 2015) and has reimbursed Newton Public Schools for $100,000 worth of technology annually from 2012 through at least 2017. Also, BC allows city employees to take some courses.
Ah, the Newton Tab from three years ago. AKA, The Age of Enlightenment.