I Suppose a Mushroom Cloud Is Next.
By Jim Conley • Jul 8th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
Today’s Globe features a roundup of last month’s Selectman’s side show on gifting more funds for the Boston Archdiocese’s housing project at the former St. Aidan’s Church [read the article here]. Here’s an excerpt:
“But most urged the board to move ahead. The alternative, many said, would be worse — a large development built under Chapter 40B, which exempts a development from local zoning ordinances if at least 20 percent of the housing units meet the state’s criteria for being affordable.”
It may be worse, or it may be better. We don’t know. At the time the Board of Selectmen had the question in front of them, there were no other designs on that site of which I am aware. In fact, it’s hard to believe that the economics of the Archdiocese’s project - circumstances that have led to the need for millions in public subsidies - are going to make a “denser development” feasible at the site. In fact, one reasonable scenario (i.e., default) might find the Town in possession of the property.
This is a classic scare tactic (i.e., “Let’s invade Iraq to head off the mushroom cloud”). You know, take a bad idea and cast the prospect of not acting on it in apocalyptic terms.
And bear in mind that the vast majority of project proponents who “urged the Board to move ahead” are people who make their living developing and financing similar projects. The opponents (read: neighbors to the project) have been silenced by a lawsuit settlement.
Lost in all of this is the fact that the Brookline Board of Selectmen have given millions in public funds to a religious organization - one that had set aside housing units for Catholics only - because, apparently, they fear something much worse should they not.
It says something that our local leadership finds fear of the unknown a compelling argument.
Given the track record, it’s hard to see what could be worse than tearing down the wall of reason and wisdom that has long kept public assets out of the hands of churches. Especially, in this case, a Church that has been nothing but bullying of those who would prefer not to live with their ill-conceived project. And has been using public assets to do so [see previous post]
Update: The Selectmen are also under the impression that the St. Aidan’s site is one of two viable options for affordable housing in Brookline. That’s bogus. Indeed, the best site for an affordable housing project is the former Newton St. Landfill. In capping the landfill, DEP regulations require the same protective (impermeable) layers for housing as they do active recreation, as in soccer fields. And the best cap of all is pavement.
If we’re in such dire need to meet affordable housing requirements, how come an ideal site has been taken off the table? Gee, I wonder why.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
This posting should not be misconstrued as either support for nor opposition to the St. Aidan’s project. Rather, consider it a contribution to honest discourse, which may help the town in its locating of FUTURE high impact projects.
Here are some facts town planners and developers should know. First, without a 40B exemption, a development would have to conform to local zoning rules. For example, at the St. Aidan’s site, this would have meant that only a few single family houses could have been built.
Second, a 40B permit requires a state or federal subsidy. The St. Aidan’s developers got both.
Third, if a project is subsidized with state or federal money, historically significant buildings have to be preserved. The St. Aidan’s site has three historically significant buildings on its grounds, two of which will be demolished and the third significantly altered. Future developments would probably have to conform more closely to the regulations protecting historically significant buildings.
Bottom lines, 1) If any developer out there thinks they can or could have built a bigger project at the St. Aidan’s site, the truth is you could not and cannot. 2) The town should me more careful next time they select a site for a high impact project. At a minimum, town planners and developers should be considerate of the neighborhood and abutters. Certainly don’t ever try to get away with something big in the St. Aidan’s neighborhood again.
The referenced Sunday Globe article identifies the Housing Trust funds as being “raised mostly through a so-called linkage fee charged to developers of smaller projects (six to 15 units) that do not include affordable housing.” This “so-called linkage fee” has a background that is relevant to the issue of affordable housing addressed by the Town’s zoning bylaw. However, space limitations preclude providing the background in a comment. Perhaps I may be permitted to update a paper I prepared quite a few years ago on this subject to submit for publication here. My paper was distributed to several Town agencies but never formally responded to. Roger Blood did respond by telephone in a rather short conversation.
For the present, I would refer to earlier comments of mine on recent St. Aidan’s posts where I have asked the powers to be to explain how many affordable units would have been in place and for how long if the developers of these “smaller projects” had been required to provide affordable units on their project sites instead of contributing to the Trust Fund. I have not received any answers.
According to the Sunday Globe column, proponents of “Aid to St. Aidan’s” express concern with an even larger project with even more affordable units if the project is not resuscitated. So there seems to be a concern with having too many affordable units in a project. But if the “smaller projects” were required to include affordable units, they would consist of a much lesser percentage (up to 15%) than would be the case for the St. Aidan’s project as currently proposed. For example, consider the two fairly recent “small projects” that bookend Amory Street at Beacon Street, conveniently serviced by the Green Line’s C Line, surely an appropriate location for affordable units not exceeding 15%. But that would be too much for the developer’s market rate units’ pricing goals! So pool the Housing Trust fund with in lieu of payments, hold onto the funds for several years, and then dump a higher percentage of affordable units into an area that is already densely developed, where, magically, such higher percentage of affordable units will not have an impact on the market rate units’ pricing! Sort of defies logic, doesn’t it? Ah, but this is Brookline!