The City of Newton filed legal papers at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds on Tuesday to take ownership of 17 acres of Webster Woods, according to the Newton Conservators website.
Boston College has the right to go to court to challenge the $15.2 million price approved by the City Council, but the land now belongs to the City of Newton.
Bravo setti warren !
You can always count on Blueprint Bill of RightSize Newton to offer an intelligent comment.
How about: Thanks to Mayor Fuller, the City Council and especially the Newton Conservators for their leadership on this. This really fits with our vision of preserving the things we cherish about Newton.
P.S. The good news Paul is that the Newton Conservators will hold the conservation restriction on this land.
Now I hope we’ll maintain it. Even “natural” areas need care, and we’ve tended to neglect the ones we have, e.g., Cold Spring Park. What’s the plan on that front? Is it in the budget for this and other areas?
Newton should have purchased 4 years ago when the opportunity was in front of us. Huge mistake not to have done it then!
Greg,
Blueprintbill’s comment, in fact, is more than intelligent.
Why do you think the City, taxpayers, residents, even Boston College, have been more than severely negatively affected by what should have been done in 2015? — to the tune of millions and millions of extra dollars now having to be spent?
Where have you been?
What Councilor Baker said
@Jim. The point is there’s a time to look back and a time to look forward. The mistake of not purchasing this parcel has been rehashed many times.
I would expect a Right Size representative would be celebrating this milestone with the rest of us, not just offering yet another cynical remark.
I hope speculation about what might have been, which was never before the City Council, will not obscure the significance of Tuesday’s filing with the Registry of Deeds. It represents a combined effort by Mayor Fuller, her able staff, legal and planning team, her Webster Woods Advisory Panel , the Community Preservation Committee, the Conservation Commission, the Friends of Webster Woods, the Newton Conservators, a unanimous City Council, and hundreds of supportive citizens and even Boston College students. Together they have enabled this important and formerly public 17. 4 acres of open space to be preserved in perpetuity.
OK, I’ll buy what you say insofar as perhaps being cynical (at least to some), but still, it was not an unintelligent comment, and neither was Peter Karg’s on the same point.
@Jim: Peter is also curmudgeon but he only represents himself. Bill represents Right Size and I’d expect a Right Size representative would be celebrating the preservation of Webster Woods as it aligns (or should anyway) with its values.
@Peter: It would take a lot more than a scolding from Julie Cohen to ruin my holidays! In fact, I told Julie that I was thrilled she wrote a local editorial and encouraged her to do more.
But back to the topic at hand. It’s wonderful that we’ve preserved Webster Woods for generations to come.
What a great gift for all of Newton! Thanks
Jim, you speak for the silent majority. I think Greg may still be a bit upset by the Newton Tab editorial this week.
We can all agree that the eminent domain taking is a good thing.
Peter,
No question. It (eminent domain) just had to be done!
Greg,
ONLY since YOU ELECT specifically to raise and apparently reiterate by implication what Councilor Baker just said on this thread — which includes Councilor Baler’s statement “what might have been, which was never before the City Council” — do I find it necessary, for the convenience and information of all readers here, to repeat my V14 comment of November 27, 2019 presenting some history vis a vis City Council (then Board of Aldermen), Mayor Warren, and Webster Woods, as follows:
There is a Boston Globe October 7, 2015 article which states that the then 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 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).
Bruce Henderson’s comment on a November 18, 2019 V14 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’ made 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!)”
Again, 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.
Greg, you and Councilor Baker be the the judge. (But I wouldn’t fault the Board of Aldermen/City Council — for now costing the City of Newton millions and millions of extra dollars now having to be spent.)
Greg, just sayin because you cite Councilor Baker’s statement.
Local issues come and go. Decisions get made. Even the bigger issues that consume us typically are things that last a generation, maybe two.
The Webster Woods decision is in another league altogether. This was the biggest undeveloped and unprotected parcel of land in the city – i.e. irreplaceable. Protecting this parcel in perpetuity for future generations of Newtonians is a wonderful thing and those opportunities don’t come along often.
Many thanks to all of the groups and individuals that Councillor Baker mentioned for shepherding this through. Extra thanks to Councilor Baker for his personal and persistent involvement from the start to the end.
I am immensely happy that Newton again owns Webster Woods and that it’s under the care of the Newton Conservators. Thanks to everyone involved.
It would have been great if the state hadn’t taken it but at least now it’s back to its rightful owners.
Jim, have you heard the saying, “would you rather be right or happy.” I choose happy every time unless it’s possible to be both. In your case, you seem to have a stronger desire to stir the pot and promote your comments
perspective of the truthmultiple times on multiple threads than experience the happiness of peaceRe: @Greg “The good news Paul is that the Newton Conservators will hold the conservation restriction on this land.” That’s great, of course, but I didn’t mean how to maintain it as open space. I meant how to maintain the open space. Forests and the like can lose their natural appeal if, for example, litter and trash are allowed to pile up. Also, some elements of tree trimming and brush removal can help keep (ironically) a more natural environment. And, there’d be the question of trail construction and maintenance, if that’s appropriate.
Marti,
You essentially say my comment manifests only my “perspective of the truth”. Where do you feel I am in factual error in my comment, anywhere at all? I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to back up that I am in error.
Regarding the rest of what you say, as you have done on another thread, if it were up to you, you would simply censor what I say by removing my comment — apparently only permitting feel good cheering section comments here on V14.
And BTW, I am very glad Newton has acquired Webster Woods. (But is all you feel I am allowed to say, I’m happy, I’m happy, I’m happy…that Newton owns Webster Woods? OK, I’m happy about that.)
Jim, you got me – I skimmed your comment that reiterated your other comments. As Greg said, there was no way I was going to read that entire thing – redundancy gets boring.
I have not censored your comments but I have removed the ones and will continue to do so when I have the time in which you include any labeling of an entire group of people, in your case it’s been liberals, as having as a group negative and subjective characteristics that you refer to as objective facts.
It only takes reading all of the comments on any thread to know that you are wrong in saying that I “apparently only permit[ting]feel good cheering section comments here on V14.” And I have sent you emails explaining my reasoning and asking you to repost your comment without including the sweeping generalization of liberals – negativity and all.
Disagreeing on threads keeps the conversation going – unsubstantiated claims about a group of people and max redundancy does not.
Jim,
In addition as you like to say, you did not address the substance of my comment but just zeroed in on the one word that you found controversial – perspective. So I am now removing the word from my post so you can comment on the rest of what I said.
I believe the point Jim is making is that he’s happy about acquiring Webster Woods but it should have been done in 2015 at a much lower cost to the City.
@Greg, My comments on the many subjects on V14 reflect my independent thinking of what is best for the City. I’m not beholden to any special interests or any group. I also believe that Julie Cohen’s Editorial was right on about raising the level of “Civility” on your blog postings.
@Jim my eyes glazed over reading your response to Greg. ( Although, the sudden all- caps would wake me up! ) Yes- government is imperfect and yes Newton missed an opportunity to purchase the land at a lesser price some five years ago. Lessons learned (we hope ) but now we can be grateful. Loosen up a little and celebrate a nice win for the home team!
(Thanks for the summary Peter, there was no way I was going to read that thing.)
It’s going to be in the 50s tomorrow. Nice day for a walk in Webster Woods
Peter,
To say Newton government was merely “imperfect” vis a vis failing to acquire Webster Woods in 2015 (before BC acquired it) is a gross understatement. It was, in fact, gross negligence if not malfeasance — especially due to its tremendous multi-million dollar wasted cost.
Having said that and as I already said above, I am, indeed, as I expect most Newtonites are, very grateful that the City now has Webster Woods.
Greg,
Rather than your gratuitous scoff, I think my comment provides important key details on recent Webster Woods history of which many (albeit apparently not Peter and you) Newtonites may not be familiar and/or are interested in knowing.
Greg, please refrain from name calling. Just because some Newton citizens have a different viewpoint on the size and scope of Northland is no reason to resort to name calling. Keep it professional as Julie Cohen has suggested.
I for one am really HAPPY about this purchase. I think the Mayor deserves a ton of vredit…along with all the civic groups pushing for it. Kudos.
Such great news, and something everyone in Newton can be proud of. I hope this will motivate other communities in the area to take action to preserve their own open space. For example, Nahant is now facing a similar dispute with Northeastern University.
@greg,
I am not a “representative”, of Right Size Newton !
I am a volunteer with Right Size but have no official authority for/ or with them. I voluntarily work hard for them,.. yes. But my opinions represent my own
( “cynical ? – your call ), experiences and beliefs.
So who do we have to credit this costly circus to ?
If any credit should be lauded, it’s the grass roots citizenry who wrote letters/ emails, posted lawn signs and generally encouraged this recent taking.
Change and progress comes from these grass roots,.. Save Webster Woods Right Size Newton, Newton Villages Alliance etc seem to be, slowly perhaps but inexorably, having an impact on decision making in the city.
Festivus has passed but the airing of the grievances continues.
I think it’s a good thing to preserve Webster Woods. But aren’t we a bit premature- isn’t BC going to put up a fight?
@Greg, how did Right Size get dragged into this debate? Obsession much??
That said, it’s interesting how many of the same folks who tout “preservation” regarding WW, are also against “preservation” when it comes to Newton’s identity of villages, and dropping 800 units of Northland into the 1,200 village of Upper Falls.
Devil’s advocate: IF BC were to develop WW, it would bring jobs to Newton not to mention additional shoppers and diners for the Chestnut Hill Mall and surrounding retail and restaurants, no?
And before some jump down my throat with, “it’s not he same thing…woods vs baron concrete”, I get that! But moving past the geographically obvious, there is some duality in the comparison.
PS. Been meaning to ask this…has someone changed the settings on V14? My poop emoji is no longer displayed. As a matter of fact, it appears only those with posting rights on V14 have avatars. And in the comments above, Señior Reibman has 2 different avatars! Also, I no longer see the little opt in checkbox to receive email notifications when others post additional comments. Anyone know why?
@Matt Lai –
Yes, you’re right … not the same thing.
Correct again. Those two concepts are indeed opposites
… just getting a bit of post-Christmas snark out 😉
Considering the shade thrown by Right Size Newton at Mayor Fuller for saving Webster Woods because it’s in her neighborhood, I’d give Greg some flexibility.
Blueprintbill,
When giving credit to grass roots citizenry inexorably impacting City decision making, don’t forget comments on V14, which I feel had a direct impact in Mayor Fuller having to call back her preordained NewCAL Community/Athletic complex slated for Albemarle Park.
@Jim Epstein, @Marti Bowen – A gentle reminder … this is a thread about Webster Woods
The string of comments on this post capture many of the challenges I see facing Newton for a prosperous future. Here I want to focus on the problem that this thread, like many on V14, shows a few men publicly bickering over and over again about which of them has the “correct” political vision. Unfortunately, this particular failing of V14 impedes others from speaking up and engaging in the more diverse discussion that would be possible with more civility and self-restraint. And diversity is needed because, having lived elsewhere in the US and the world, I am shocked that anyone thinks Webster Woods is any great shakes as a conservation area: it’s got both an MBTA line and Hammond Pond Parkway running through the middle of it! The pollution from those sources, not to mention the way these major transportation routes cut off free passage from one area to another by wildlife, makes these woods a pathetic attempt at conservation. It appears that these woods are the best Newton opportunity has for conservation, but until people realize how much effort is needed to make this parcel into an effective conservation area—like getting the T and road out of it—there’s not going to be much progress on conservation. The realization of just how far behind Newton is on national standards for conservation, and the discussion of possible solutions that can only follow such realization, isn’t going to come from the continued bickering among the same men seen in this thread.
Yes. This thread is closed.