More on the DeWitt Donnybrook.
By Jim Conley • Jan 28th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
The Boston Globe’s City Weekly section takes a run at the Dennis DeWitt demotion and picks up the angle that the Selectmen probably violated the Town’s By-law and the Massachusetts statute governing appointment of preservation commission members.
They most likely did. But when has that ever mattered to the Gang of Three (Selectmen Michael Merrill, Bobby Allen and Nancy Daly)? The question is, why would they do so?
The Globe article says:
“In the month since the selectmen’s vote on De Witt, letter-writers to the local weekly have contended that the move sprang from developers nervous he might block planned building or tear-downs. In the past three years, De Witt has supported the creation of three new historic districts in Brookline, which add regulatory hurdles to demolishing, renovating, and building.”
Well, as I’ve written (see article here) the complaints against DeWitt - as reflected in the public record - are specious. (God help us if we’re going to make appointments based on a Nancy Daly personality assessment, as she performs in the Globe piece.) And it’s quite clear that Selectman’s Chair Bobby Allen wanted DeWitt gone.
There are only two things I know of that can motivate people to act in this way.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
And the second motivation is …?
How does the “creation of three new historic districts in Brookline, which add regulatory hurdles to demolishing, renovating and building” add to the benefit of the residents of our Town? There are expenses associated therewith. Consider the rationale in each instance for creating these new districts. One reason is to limit certain construction that people in the neighborhoods may find undesirable that cannot be addressed via zoning. But zoning’s Dover Amendment for non-profit educational and religious uses is not overridden by Chapter 40C. If this rationale is appropriate for these new districts, then perhaps we can expect Fisher Hill residents to seek such protection with respect to the reservoir site. Some years back Fisher Hill residents declined historic district treatment; apparently it was not then threatened by the reservoir site. If the benefits of historic districts are that significant, can we expect more neighborhoods to seek such status. Curiously, neighbors of St. Aidan’s saw no need to be burdened with regulatory hurdles once St. Aidan’s (Saints preserve us!) was assured of remaining. Yet an adjoining neighborhood decided to do so because of some perceived threats of development.
When Cottage Farm was considering becoming the Town’s first historic district, one of the (wink, wink) rationales was to thwart BU in the neighborhood. But BU cannot be denied the benefit of the Dover Amendment by Chap. 40C especially with its deep pockets.
It seems so important to make sure that aluminum gutters and downspouts are verboten in historic districts. For this we can thank our active and ever vigilant Brookline preservationists.
By the way, what about a cost/benefit analysis of the Preservation Commission? From the standpoint of residents in these historic districts, in addition to regulatory hurdles, tradesmen tend to charge more for repairs and renovations. And then there is the matter of complying with the tastes of the “taste police,” aka the Preservation Commission, rather than one’s own.