On Brookline

Question: Why is On Brookline all hepped up over the housing project at St. Aidan’s? Isn’t it kind of late to be spouting off, as construction will reportedly begin next month?

Answer: First of all, I’m not sure the project is as far along as the Town and the Boston Archdiocese would have us believe. The rule in development is that a project presented as inevitable is harder to fight than one with an uncertain future. That notwithstanding, the St. Aidan’s project is emblematic of crony government in Brookline.

Question: What makes it so objectionable? Isn’t affordable housing a laudable goal for the Town?

Answer: Of course it is. And this site supports meaningful attempts to improve access to affordable housing in Brookline. But St. Aidan’s is a bottomless pit. The Brookline Selectmen will have burned through $6 million in affordable housing trust funds on a project where each time funds are advanced, the number of affordable housing units shrinks.

Question: It seems that only a handful of people object to the project. If it’s so awful why aren’t more people objecting?

Answer: That’s because the neighbors to the project are essentially under a gag rule from opposing the housing project. Seventy-five of them brought a lawsuit against the Boston Archdiocese and were then threatened with excessive discovery activity (i.e., depositions that would require significant legal expenses). The residents settled the case by, in part, agreeing to no longer oppose the project.

Question: So they can no longer object to the project in any way?

Answer: Who knows? Except that when a few of the plaintiffs (neighbors) sent e-mails objecting to the use of additional public funds back in May, Brookline’s Housing Director Fran Price snitched to the Archdiocese’s lawyer Michael Vhay of DLA Piper. Vhay then sent threatening letters to those residents who contacted the Town.

Question: That still doesn’t explain why On Brookline is so hepped up over the project.

Answer: Sure it does. Look, the Town and the Church have essentially silenced residents who will have to live with the monstrosity they have planned for that neighborhood. [At the time the lawsuit was settled, Selectman Nancy Daly called the lawsuit, "outrageous behavior" (pot meet kettle)]. Whenever people have been silenced by a partnership between government and a religious enterprise, it falls on those with (digital) printing presses to aggressively pursue the abuse of power.

Question: You keep harping on the violation of the Constitution’s Separation Clause. Hasn’t the US Supreme Court ruled that public funds can be advanced to religious organizations as long as those funds are used for a secular purpose?

Answer: I guess if you agree with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas that there’s no entanglement in religion by providing funds to a project like this, you’re on solid ground. But the fact is that the Archdiocese is going to provide services to residents that appear to have the Church serving in a capacity that far exceeds that of traditional landlord [see previous post].

Question: But Brookline is a Liberal community. Lining up with Scalia and Thomas doesn’t make any sense.

Answer: Brookline’s residents may be Liberal (whatever that means), but Brookline Town Government is nothing more than an adjunct to the local real estate industry. With that, the guiding principle in local affairs is self-interest. For example, the proponents of the project on the Brookline Selectmen - Nancy Daly and Robert Allen - are members of the Catholic parish that sold the St. Aidan’s property (for over $3 million) to the Archdiocese.

It defies all logic that Daly and Allen can be objective. Like Scalia, when it comes to questions of the Catholic Church, dogma appears to be their determining factor. And that’s scary.