Last week the Newton Historic Commission voted to oppose the landmarking of the Senior Center building in Newtonville.
City Councilors Tarik Lucas and Julia Malakie had nominated the site for landmark status on behalf of constituents that were not happy with the proposed new design for the Senior Center.
The Senior Center redesign project has been unfolding over years. After 100’s of public meetings over four years and a complete new design being put together (and paid for), the 11th hour effort to ‘landmark’ the building appeared (at least to me) to be an effort to use whatever bureaucratic tools were available to throw a wrench in the works … rather than a good faith effort at preserving our most important historic buildings.
That all seems to be confirmed by Councilor Lucas’s email newsletter this morning. In it he raises three new issues about the project and it sounds like he intends to use these issues to further obstruct the Senior Center process and project.
Article 97 – The park outside the Senior Center was built in 2005. According to the newsletter, since it is now public park land, it can not be built over (with the new Senior Center) without a 2/3 vote of the State legislature
Historic Commission Oversight – The newsletter says “I have found a … board order from 1992 that says ““That all feasible means be taken to preserve and/or replace the architectural elements, both interior and exterior, which give the building its historic character, including, but not limited to, doors, windows, casework and vaulted ceilings. Any necessary exterior alterations of the building or the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Historical Commission.”
Deed Restriction – He also raises a 1938 Deed Restriction for the property – “The land herein conveyed shall be used by said City for a branch public library and to provide grounds for such branch public library.”
What all this makes clear is that opponents of the new Senior Center are now just picking up whatever they can find lying around and throwing it in the way of the project – historical preservation, open space protection, support for libraries, etc.
Raising any of these issues early in the design process would have been reasonable and constructive. Raising them all now is the worst kind of obstructionism and is one the reasons every public project in Newton takes forever and costs a fortune.
As is often stated, elections have consequences. Tarik is an At-large councilor. If the senior center is a big enough priority for people, then their displeasure can be expressed at the ballot box (assuming of course that he would have an opponent).
Surprising/not Surprising that with all those meetings and hundreds of hours spent on this proposal someone would have conducted basic due diligence on the site.
Coincidently, this morning several people copied me on their emails to Councilor Lucas commending him on his discovery and expressed their hope that the city will be respectful of existing legislation and commitments.
And, Bruce, if you recall, Lucas won the most votes of any councilor in the November election.
Late or not, how legally binding is that deed restriction?
The fault would lie on the City for proposing that site without checking a legally binding deed restriction.
Also worth mentioning, if that 1938 Deed Restriction were indeed enforceable it would mean that no Senior Center, not even the current one, could be at that site. It’s hard to see where that would lead – reopening the Newtonville Branch Library ? ;-)
When was it converted from library to senior center? I’m assuming some checked the deed before the conversion and found some legal justification…
Or just quietly converted hoping no one would check?
With respect to Article 97, was there an acquisition or conservation restriction in 2005 to create that park? Does there need to be? Or does any land in the setback of a public lot with a few benches added qualify for protection as a park?
Didn’t the Historical Commission just make the determination that reasonable efforts were being taken to preserve some historical elements and that it wasn’t necessary to landmark the site and keep the building frozen in time? Does Councilor Lucas just want to force another meeting with the same vote?
And as for the Deed Restriction, it seems like that was violated the moment they closed the branch library. Does anyone seriously believe the only remedy is to reopen a branch library on the site? Hopefully the lawyers have an easy answer for that one.
Yes, I’d say this is obstructionism to an extreme. None of this passes the smell test. Hoping we can move on.
Prior to the historical commission’s meeting and their decision to not landmark the site, I don’t recall Councilor Lucas bringing forward any of these objections. These three objections, if true, are not minor issues. Correct me if I am wrong. If he had brought up these objections prior to or at the meeting, I could understand it. Instead he brings them forward after the decision does not goes his way. I can only assume that this is his way of keeping the senior center from being built.
Lisa- whether Lucas won by one vote or by hundreds, it doesn’t matter. He won fairly and that is why elections matter. As I said if the senior center is a big enough issue for all of Newton, then we’ll see how he does in the next election, again assuming he runs against someone.
I find the title of the post more than a little ironic after the city rolled out so many city paid employees and a least one paid consultant to dispute Councilors Lucas and Malakie. I for one found that disturbing.
A point of factual clarification Jerry. There were, I believe three NHC Members who joined Councilors Lucas and Malakie in the nomination. As I understand for a property to be NOMINATED which just means it will be considered, it must meet the following criteria:
Petitions for nomination for consideration of designation as a local landmark may only be submitted by any of the following:
All record owners of the nominated property;
A member of the City Council, provided that at least (1) member of the Newton Historical Commission must co-petition the nomination; or
The Mayor, the Director of the Planning and Development Department, or the Commissioner of the Inspectional Services Department, provided that at least (1) member of the Newton Historical Commission must co-petition the nomination.
So it only needed one Newton Historical Commissioner to agree to that process but three actually joined in that nomination. Puzzling that two Commissioners who joined in the request to the nomination then voted against the nomination.
Second fact check. Lisa while Tarik received tremendous support, he received the second most votes. John Oliver received the most votes. They both did extremely well.
Thanks Mary Lee.
Have none of you noticed today’s date?
@Doug L – No, no jokes in this post. Here’s Councilor Lucas’s newsletter.
BTW – Tarik has a good email newsletter for keeping up on general issues in the city. Send an email to [email protected] to subscribe.
I have to admit, I did a double take. Jerry, it would have been quite the accomplishment, coordinating this with Councilor Lucas and his newsletter.
The mind boggles. I am literally speechless.
Doug: Because the items listed don’t make sense? Or because of something else?
Judging by the lack of response on this post, I’m guessing the former. Doesn’t seem like there is a lot of folks defending these issues from the newsletters as being anything real, but I’d welcome more responses from folks in the know. (that isn’t me, I know very little).
Yes, you have it, the items listed don’t make sense. I truly thought these schemes were hatched in the mind of Jerry, like his other posts yesterday.
1. If that area is “parkland” so are a lot of small, slightly improved areas of city-owned land. The same would apply to the grassy area by the Newton Centre triangle parking lot, to the slightly wild area between the building & parking lot at the library, and to various slightly-nice areas that were just reconfigured when redoing West Newton and Newtonville.
2. I admit to not having read the board order but it sounds to me like, “if you’re going to do this (1992 project), do it right” — and, as others have said, another board order could supersede it.
3. I *did* read the deed restriction, and I’m no lawyer, but it reads to me like a typical conveyance contract for what’s essentially eminent domain: city acquiring the land & building for a specific purpose. Does it have to remain that specific purpose in perpetuity? I don’t know, but considering the building is longer a library I have my doubts.
I think Tarik should probably have consulted with city attorneys prior to bringing these issues forward. I honestly thought this was an April fool’s joke at first, which probably tells you what I think about the validity of these points. A few very quick thoughts:
1) Why is this considered a “park”? Not listed as a park by P&R. I certainly appreciate the outdoor space in Newtonville, and I’m upset it is being torn down just a few decades from when it was rehabbed with CPA funds, but I can’t see the legal rationale for Article 97. When we redid the sidewalks in Newtonville, did that make the additional seating area space a park? I would certainly understand this argument for Cabot Park, but this seems non-applicable here. Just because Tarik wants it to be applicable doesn’t make it so, and his write up is so bare bones I can’t tell if he has a real point or not. I’d think this particular point in particular needs more facts.
2) Point number 2 is a board order from 1992. I’m not sure I get this one either. Couldn’t this just be fixed by a NEW board order from now? I’m not being snarky, I really don’t understand why this would be seen as an obstacle when the city council will need to approve NewCal as an expenditure, no? A board order isn’t on title, it isn’t a deed restriction, it is just a requirement for that particular moment to switch it to the senior center. If there is a new vote of the city council, why would they be obligated to follow the conditions set out in the early 1990s? I mean you could make an ethical argument that the city changed the use of the property to a senior center under what turned out to be false conditions after 30 years, but legally I don’t think you’ve got more than that. But hey, what do I know?
3) This one makes me wonder how the first senior center was created, but my guess is that the deed restriction isn’t a true obstacle because the library is no longer in operation. I’d have to see the full deed restriction from title, but I’m guessing there is a lot more here than disclosed. I wonder if the deed restriction had a savings clause that allowed the city to use it for another purpose if a replacement library was built, or in good faith. Both would seem to work here if so, but we don’t know unless we have the actual deed restriction. If someone could post it or show a link, that would certainly help.
Kinda feels like this is someone throwing potential issues at a wall and hoping that one of them sticks. Personally I would have done a bit more research before I sent to a wider audience, but none of these should be that hard to answer, no?
But if I was a betting person, none of these will turn out to be an issue.
Fig I give you credit that at least you want to research and discuss the issues. Sadly Jerry wants to dismiss Tarik’s questions without a 2nd thought. Is that the democratic way? BTW the latest plan of building a behemoth of a structure that is totally out of scale with the neighborhood was not part of the original plan Jerry. Question, what’s next tear down the old school building across the street that was converted into condos and replace it with 2-3 million dollar townhouses? No matter how much they are outspent in the future Lucas and Oliver will get reelected because they represent the silent majority and not the well heeled minority
“Art. 97 may be enforced by the Department of Environmental Protection (Mass. Const. amend. Art. XLIX) or by a civil action brought by ten or more citizens of the Commonwealth (Citizens Right to Intervene, G.L. c. 30, § 10A).”
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/recent-case-law-on-article-97-limits-91869/
I might try to find 9 folks and go for it.
Tarik represents many of us n Newtonville that feel overwhelmed by the massive structures being built on both sides of the pike, without any sense of proportion or consideration for open space. It seems like people aren’t happy until every square inch of real estate is turned into a box or hard surface.
I’m kinda happy that the pike is there now- until someone builds over it, it’s the only thing preventing Washington Street from becoming an urban canyon. At least some sky show over the pike, in spite of the noise I’ll take it.
At some point, if the community can’t coalesce around a senior center proposal, I don’t see why Newton keeps pushing it. There has been extraordinarily ample time for discussion and community input.
I think forcing a “take it or leave it” – this is the senior center or there is no new senior center – approach to a final proposal would get the job done and is logical at this point in the game.
While I appreciate some people trying to suggest that Tarik is only being a good steward for his neighbors, this just seems like obstructionism after all this time. But we also know that those with the most vocal voices are the ones that tend to vote so from Tariks’ perspective it makes sense. Why else would Emily Norton still be a councilor. At least Tarik is in good company.