Please pay particular attention to their argument that the city council has no authority at all over the BRA, so since they have no authority over the BRA they can meet with them in private whenever they want. Also, their argument that they can meet with whomever they want in closed session as long as there is no pending action affecting that person or entity before the council.
In other words, their position seems to be that they can meet in private with anyone for as long as they want, then put a motion in front of the council, have one open meeting to vote on whatever they want to give that person, and that is ok.
Doesn't sound like the kind of government that I want, but read for yourself......
Kevin
CITY OF BOSTONLAW DEPARTMENTCity Hall, Room 615Boston, MA 02201
THOMAS M. MENINOMayor
MERITA A. HOPKINSCorporation Counsel
May 26, 2005
Shirley Kressel 27 Hereford Street Boston, Massachusetts
Kevin McCrea218 West Springfield Street Boston, Massachusetts
Kathleen Devine 49 Symphony Road #33 Boston, Massachusetts
RE: Kevin McCrea. Shirley Kressel and Kathleen Devine v. Michael F. Flaherty and the Boston City Council
Superior Court No. 05-1798-B
Enclosed pursuant to Superior Court Rule 9A, please find the following documents:
1. THE DEFENDANTS', MICHAEL F. FLAHERTY AND BOSTON CITY COUNCIL, MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO MASS. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6); and 2. THE DEFENDANTS', MICHAEL F. FLAHERTY AND BOSTON CITY COUNCIL, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS.
Please respond within the time allowed. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours truly,
Ronald G. NelsonAssistant Corporation Counsel(617)635-4097
RGN/jlfEnclosureTEL.: (617) 635-4034 FAX: (617) 635-3199
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENTOF THE TRIAL COURTCIVIL ACTION NO. 05-1798-B
KEVIN McCREA, SHIRLEY KRESSEL, and KATHLEEN DEVINE,Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL F. FLAHERTY and the BOSTON CITY COUNCIL,Defendants.
THE DEFENDANTS', MICHAEL F. FLAHERTY andBOSTON CITY COUNCIL, MOTION TO DISMISSPURSUANT TO MASS. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)
Now come the Defendants, Boston City Council and Michael F. Flaherty, as City Council President ("Defendants") in the above-captioned matter and move this Honorable Court, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss all counts of the plaintiffs' complaint against the Defendants. As reasons for this Motion, the Defendants state:
1) The plaintiffs fail to state a claim under G.L. c. 39, §23B; and
2) The relief sought by the plaintiffs is overly broad.
The plaintiffs, therefore, have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and their complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
As further grounds for its motion, the Defendants submit the attached Memorandum of Law.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this day a truecopy of the above document was servedupon each party appearing pro se by U.S.mail, first class, postage paid.
Ronald G" Nelson
Date"
Respectfully submitted,
Defendants BOSTON CITY COUNCILand Michael F. FIaherty, as City
Council President,
By their attorney,Merita A. HopkinsCorporation Counsel
Mark Sweeney,BB0P490160Ronald G. Nelson, BBO # 652035Assistant Corporation CounselCity of Boston Law DepartmentCity Hall, Room 615Boston, MA 02201(617) 635-4097
2
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURTCIVIL ACTION NO. 05-1798-B
KEVIN McCREA, SHIRLEY KRESSEL,and KATHLEEN DEVINE,Plaintiffs,v.MICHAEL F. FLAHERTY and theBOSTON CITY COUNCIL,Defendants.
THE DEFENDANTS', MICHAEL F. FLAHERTY andBOSTON CITY COUNCIL, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIRMOTION TO DISMISS
INTRODUCTION
This is an action, pursuant to GL. c. 39, section 23B, the state Open MeetingLaw, that seeks (1) to sanction the Boston City Council for a purported violation of lawin connection with a January 20,2005, informational briefing provided to CityCouncillors regarding a tularemia outbreak at a Boston University research facility(hereinafter, the "Tularemia Briefing"), and (2) to invalidate a December 15, 2004, voteof the Boston City Council to approve the extension of Boston Redevelopment Authority(BRA) Urban Renewal Plans. The plaintiffs' claims against the Boston City Council andMichael F. Flaherty, as City Council President, should be dismissed as a matter of lawbecause the plaintiffs clearly fail to state a claim pursuant to G.L. c. 39, §23B upon whichrelief can be granted.
This memorandum will discuss the provisions of the Open Meeting Law generally as well as the particular allegations regarding the Tularemia Briefing and the Urban Renewal Extensions and will conclude that the Boston City Council fully complied with the Open Meeting Law in both instances.
FACTS1
The Boston City Council is the legislative body of the City of Boston. See St. 1948, c. 452, §11, as appearing in St. 1951, c. 376, § 1. In order to conduct public business, a quorum of seven out of thirteen Councillors is necessary. Complaint, P 10. On June 3, 2003, members of the City Council participated in the first of several informational sessions with BRA regarding Urban Renewal Plan Extensions. Complaint, P 12. On June 19, 2003, members of the City Council participated in a second informational session with the BRA. Complaint, P 13. Plaintiff Shirley Kressel was present for this informational session, which she characterized as a meeting during which the BRA provided information on Urban Renewal Plan Extension. Id. On August 14, 2003 another informational meeting was held with the BRA with only two Councillors in attendance. Complaint, P14; Attachment 3. Several other such informational sessions were held in order to promote dialogue on issues of concern to the City Council. Id. At no time during any of the above referenced informational sessions did the Councillors deliberate, decide or vote on any matter properly before them that required a quorum.
______________________________________________1 The defendants assume these facts, as alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint, only for the purposes of pursuing their Motion to Dismiss and, therefore, the subsequent statements should not be construed as an admission to the allegations plead in the complaint.
2
See Complaint, Attachment 2. On December 15, 2004, during a duly noticed open session, the City Council deliberated and passed an Order transmitted to it by Mayor Thomas M. Menino on October 26, 2004, regarding Urban Renewal Plan Extension. Complaint, P18; Exhibits 1 and 2.2 On January 20, 2005, the City Council participated in the Tularemia Briefing with Boston University regarding the outbreak at one of its research facilities. Complaint, P 19. At no time during this briefing did the Councillors deliberate, decide or vote on any matter properly before them that required a quorum and was within their jurisdiction to consider. On March 21, 2005, acting on a complaint filed by plaintiff Kathleen Devine, Assistant District Attorney Donna J. Patalano sent a letter to Council President Flaherty, stating that the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office has concluded that the Tularemia Briefing "did not fall into any of the enumerated exceptions provided pursuant to the Open Meeting Law." Complaint, P 21; Attachment 11.
On March 24,2005, several City Councillors attended another informational session with the BRA. Complaint, P 23-25. Although plaintiff McCrea wrote several letters to the Suffolk District Attorney's Office complaining that the March 24, 2005 informational session violated the Open Meeting Law, to date, the District Attorney's Office has not responded to his complaint. Complaint, P 31 and 36.
________________________________2 Although as a general rule a court may not consider documents outside of the pleadings withoutconverting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment, exceptions to this general rule exist "fordocuments central to plaintiffs' claim; or for documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint."Watterson v. Page. 987 F. 2d 3 (1st Cir. 1993). An exception also exists for official records, the authenticity of which the plaintiffs do not dispute. See id., quoting Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P.. 949 F. 2d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 503 U.S. 960 (1992).
3
ARGUMENT
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD BE GRANTED WHERE THE PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER G.L. c.39, §23B
The plaintiffs' allegations, that the Boston City Council conducted "meetings" in violation of G.L. c. 39, §23B, are completely without merit. 3 General Laws ch. 39, §23B provides that "[a]ll meetings of a governmental body shall be open to me public .... No quorum of a governmental body shall meet in private for the purpose of deciding on or deliberating toward a decision on any matter except4 as provided by this section." G.L. c. 39, §23B (emphasis added). "Executive session" is defined by G.L. c. 39, § 23A as "any meeting of a governmental body which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." G.L. c. 39, § 23A (emphasis added). "Meeting" is defined as "any corporal convening and deliberation of a governmental body for which a quorum is required in order to make a decision at which any public business or public policy matter over which the governmental body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power is discussed or considered; but shall not include any on-site inspection of any project or program." G.L. c. 39, § 23A (emphasis added). "Deliberation" is defined as "a verbal exchange between a quorum of members of a governmental body attempting to
____________________________________________________3 The Defendants also assert that the plaintiffs' standing to pursue their claim is, at the moment, tenuous. The Open Meeting Law allows three registered voters to seek relief against a governmental body in violation of the law. See G.L. c. 39,§ 23B. In the instant complaint, while captioned in the name of three purported registered voters, Mr. McCrea, Ms. Kressel, and Ms. Devine, the complaint is only signed by Mr. McCrea pro se. Since Mr. McCrea does not appear to be an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, his signature is on his own behalf, and, therefore, the complaint is deficient, as it lacks the required number of registered voters.
4 The exception refers to the enumerated exceptions under which a governmental body may hold an"executive session." See G.L. c. 39, § 23B.
4
arrive at a decision on any public business within its jurisdiction." G.L. c. 39, § 23A (emphasis added).
While these provisions make it clear that the public's business must be conducted in public, it is equally clear that not every discussion of issues of public concern is subject to the Open Meeting Law. In the case of the Boston City Council, only pending legislative measures that are within the City Council's jurisdiction are subject to the Open Meeting Law since those are the only matters upon which the City Council may deliberate or make decisions. See G.L. c. 39, § 23B. As discussed below, neither the Tularemia Briefing nor the briefings provided to City Councillors by the BRA director were related to pending legislation within the Boston City Council's jurisdiction and thus it is clear from the plain language of the statute that the plaintiffs' claims have no merit.
The City Council is the City of Boston's legislative body. See St. 1948, c. 452, § 11, as appearing in St. 1951, c. 376, § 1. The business of the City Council is to act on legislation in the form of orders, ordinances or resolutions, i.e.. to legislate. See id. Legislation may take the form of orders, ordinances or resolutions. See St. 1948 c. 452, §17D. In order for the Council to legislate, a quorum of the body must be present at a duly noticed public session. See St. 1948 c. 452, §17D; Rules of the Boston City Council, Rules 25 and 5.6 Here it is clear on the face of the complaint and its attachments
_______________________________________5 Rule 2, entitled Quorum, states:"A quorum of the council shall consist of seven members and any member may call for a roll call onthe question of the presence of a quorum. If at any time any meeting is called to order, or if during ameeting, a roll call shows less than a quorum, the presiding officer shall call a recess of not more than ten minutes, after which time, if a quorum is not present, the meeting may be adjourned by me presiding officer." .6 Rule 5, entitled Matters Properly Before Council, states:"No motion or proposition of a subject different from the one under consideration shall be admittedunder the color of an amendment.
5
that none of the briefings were related at the time of their occurrence to any order,ordinance or resolution pending before the City Council for which a quorum of members was required.
1. The Plaintiffs Complaint is untimely filed.The plaintiffs claim that the January 20, 2005 Tularemia Briefing with Boston University and informational sessions with the BRA held prior to the December 15, 2004 session, during which the City Council passed an Order approving the Urban Renewal Plan Extension, violated the Open Meeting Law. However, pursuant to G.L. c. 39, §23B, a complaint to "invalidate an action taken at any meeting at which any provision of this section has been violated" must be "filed within twenty-one days of the date when such action is made public." G.L. c. 39, §23B. Failure to adhere to this strict statute of limitations bars any such complaint. See Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 65. & others v. City Council of Lawrence. 403 Mass. 563, 566 (1988). The plaintiffs seek to "invalidate the December 15, 2004 vote by the City Council approving the BRA proposal for Urban Renewal Plan Extensions." That vote occurred at a duly noticed public session of the City Council, and therefore became public immediately. See Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks. Lodge No. 65. & others v. City Council of Lawrence. 403 Mass. 563, 566. The plaintiffs did not file their complaint until May 7,
________________________________________Any motion, order, or resolution which has been previously debated and acted upon in the current municipal year, or which conflicts with the city charter, federal or state constitution or with rules prescribed by existing city ordinance, federal law or state law, or which in the opinion of the presiding officer does have a direct bearing on the business of the council shall be referred to the committee of the whole, and shall not be further considered by the council except upon report by that committee. There shall be no appeal from the decision of the chair hereunder, and this rule shall not be subject to suspension. Upon invocation of this rule by the president, no motion shall apply, nor shall unanimous consent to speak on the matter so referred be in order.
The committee of the whole may report that any motion, order, or resolution, so referred to it, is out of order for the reasons contained in Rule 5, and its report shall be a final disposition of the matter, subject to
6
2005, more than twenty-one days after the vote became public. The statute of limitations of G.L. c. 39, § 23B therefore bars the plaintiffs from seeking an order invalidating the City Council's vote. See Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 65, & others v. City Council of Lawrence, 403 Mass. 563, 566. Thus, the plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed as a matter of law.
2. The Plaintiffs fail to show that the City Council decided or deliberated on any matters requiring a quorum in connection with the Tularemia Briefing.
The plaintiffs allege that the Boston City Council "held a 'councillors only meeting' to discuss Boston University exposing three of its researchers to tularemia." Complaint, P19. Tularemia is "an infectious disease of rodents, man and some domestic animals that is caused by the bacterium Francisella tularensis...." The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd Ed. Under state regulation, cases or suspect cases of tularemia must be reported to "the board of health in the community where the case is diagnosed or suspect case is identified." 105 CMR 300.100. The local board of health must then report to the state Department of Public Health. 105 CMR 300.110. m the City of Boston, the board of health is the Boston Public Health Commission, a body politic and corporate and political subdivision of the Commonwealth established by St. 1995 c. 147, §3.7
A memorandum from City Council President Flaherty, dated January 20, 2005, stated that "[a]s a result of this exposure and in conjunction with the Mayor, I would like to invite all Councillors to a Councillors only meeting today at 12:30 p.m. in my office (the Council President's office) to discuss the incident. Representatives from BU will
___________________________________________an appeal. The same provisions as those governing appeals from rulings of the presiding officer shallgovern such appeal."
7
provide Councillors with a briefing as well as be available for questions." Complaint, Attachment 9.
The complaint fails to allege that at the time of the Tularemia Briefing, January 20, 2005, there was any order, ordinance or resolution pending before the Council for which a quorum would be required that related to either tularemia or Boston University. Nor could such an allegation be made as there was no order, ordinance or resolution for which a quorum would be required for legislative action regarding either subject matter pending before the Council on January 20, 2005. See Boston City Council, Legislative Calendar for the January 26, 2005 Council Session, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.8
Thus, the January 20, 2005 briefing regarding the Boston University Tularemia incident is a matter of public health. The Tularemia Briefing did not relate to any matter upon which the City Council could decide or deliberate, as such matters are the exclusive province of the Boston Public Health Commission that is "not subject to the supervision of any other department, commission, board, bureau, agency or officer of the city..." St. 1995 c. 147, § 3(a). Since the Public Health Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over public health matters in the City of Boston without oversight from other official government bodies, the City Council's briefing on the Tularemia incident did not violate the Open Meeting Law, as the Council could not decide or deliberate toward a decision on a matter of public health.
Finally, although the plaintiffs make much of Assistant District Attorney Donna J. Patalano's March 21, 2005 letter to Council President Flaherty, stating that the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office has concluded that the Tularemia Briefing "did not fall
______________________________________________7 The Boston Public Health Commission's "Report of Pneumonic Tularemia in Three Boston University Researchers" may be found at http://bphc.org/reports/pdfs/report_202.pdf.
8
into any of the enumerated exceptions provided pursuant to the Open Meeting Law," it is clear the District Attorney's Office did not take the foregoing into consideration during its investigation of Kathleen Devine's complaint. It is telling that the District Attorney's Office has taken no further action in this matter or sought any order from this Court or the Supreme Judicial Court, pursuant to G.L. c. 39, § 23B.
3. The Plaintiffs fail to show that the City Council decided or deliberated on any matters requiring a quorum in connection with the BRA briefings.
The complaint alleges that on June 3, 2003, June 19, 2003, August 14, 2003, and September 23, 2003, unnoticed meetings of the City Council were held to discuss Urban Renewal Plan Extensions with the BRA. Complaint, P 12, 13, 14, 17. Again, none of the briefings referred to in the plaintiffs' complaint required a quorum of the City Council because no pending legislative matters were before the Council at the time of the alleged violations. Indeed, even if a quorum of Councillors were present at these various informational sessions, which is not alleged in the complaint, the Council did not decide or deliberate on any pending matter. Nor could the Council have deliberated or decided any issue because no legislation was pending before it at the time of the briefings. See Exhibit 3; see also G.L. c. 39, § 23A.
The Boston Redevelopment Authority is a separate body corporate and politic under the provisions of St. 1960, c. 652 and G. L. c. 121B, § 1, defining "Operating agency," and thus is not subject to the supervision or control of the Boston City Council. The City Council's only authority with respect to urban renewal is its ability to approve Urban Renewal Plan Extensions derived from its authority to approve original Urban Renewal Plans under G.L. c.121 B, § 48. Thus, the only decision or deliberation that the
_____________________________
8 Exhibit 3 is an official listing of all business then pending before the City Council on file.
9
Boston City Council could make with respect to Urban Renewal Plans, the December 15,2005, vote, was completely in compliance with the Open Meeting Law and the plaintiffsdo not contend otherwise. Complaint, P 18.
Zoning issues in Boston are handled by the Boston Zoning Commission, an administrative agency established by St. 1956, c. 665, § 1. The Boston City Charter prohibits the City Council from any direct or indirect involvement in the conduct of the executive or administrative business of the City. City Council of Boston v. Mayor of Boston, 383 Mass. 716, 723 (1981); see St. 1948, c.452, §17G, inserted by St. 1951, c.376, §1. Thus, the City Council could take no part in any decision or deliberation related to zoning.
The allegations and attachments to the plaintiffs' complaint do not show the Boston City Council illegally conducting City Council business with the Director of the BRA. Rather, the materials disclose that the BRA director made himself available to discuss BRA business with individual City Councillors that was in fact outside the jurisdiction of the City Council and would otherwise never come under its purview.
On December 15,2004, the City Council approved a BRA proposal for Urban Renewal Plan Extensions. Complaint, P 18. The Order approved by the City Council on December 15,2004, was filed with the Council on October 26, 2004 and thus could not have been the subject of any decision or deliberation requiring a quorum at the time of the alleged violations. While it is alleged that an Order relating to Urban Renewal Plan Extensions had been filed with the City Council on February 5, 2003, it must be noted that the "Order of Councillors Felix D. Arroyo, Maura A. Hennigan, Chuck Turner and Charles C. Yancey" relates to proposed state legislation that is outside the jurisdiction of
10
the Boston City Council and not to any order, ordinance or resolution over which the Boston City Council then had jurisdiction. Complaint, P 11; Attachment 1.9
Indeed, as evidenced by Council President Flaherty's June 3, 2003 memorandum to the Boston City Council, the alleged "meetings" with the BRA were informational sessions during which the City Council took no vote and made no decisions. See Memorandum of Council President Michael F. Flaherty, dated June 3, 2003, attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint as Attachment 2. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' complaint admits that the purpose of the June 19, 2003 meeting was for the BRA to provide information to the City Council. See Complaint P 13. Similarly, the City Council's January 20, 2005 meeting with representatives of Boston University was conducted to receive information regarding a public health issue. See Memorandum of Council President Michael F. Flaherty, dated January 20, 2005, attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint as Attachment 9. However, no quorum was required, no deliberation occurred and no vote was taken.
In fact, according to the City of Boston Charter and the Rules of the Boston City Council, the Council may only deliberate and decide on matters that are properly before it in the form of resolutions, orders or ordinances. See St. 1948 c. 452, §17D; Rules of the Boston City Council, Rule 5. Mayor Thomas M. Menino transmitted the City Council Order regarding Urban Renewal Plan Extension on October 26, 2004. See Exhibit 1. Said Order was referred to the Planning and Economic Development Committee the same day. Id. The full Council passed the Order on December 15, 2004, and Mayor Menino approved the Order on December 23, 2004. See Exhibit 2. Therefore, the informational
______________________________9 The plaintiffs' insinuation that this measure was not scheduled for hearing by City Council President Flaherty is false and misleading. City Council records show that Docket No. 000294 was duly referred to Council's Committee on Planning and Economic Development on February 5, 2003 and that it was ultimately placed on file without action on December 17, 2003. See Exhibit 4.
11
sessions held with the BRA, referred to in PP 13, 14, 15 and 17 of plaintiffs' complaint, did not violate the Open Meeting Law, as the Urban Renewal matter was not properly before the Council prior to October 26, 2004. Thus, before Mayor Menino transmitted the Order, the City Council could not have "deliberated" on its contents.
Moreover, although the plaintiffs claim that these alleged "meetings" do not meet the enumerated exceptions listed in G.L. c. 39, § 23B, (see Complaint 127) the City Council never intended to hold an executive session, and further, the informational sessions do not meet me definition of executive session. See G.L. c. 39, § 23A. Therefore, the exceptions to the Open Meeting Law do not apply to such informational sessions. Since these informational sessions do not meet the definitions of "meeting," "executive session" or "deliberation," the plaintiffs' claim that the Boston City Councilviolated the Open Meeting Law is completely without merit, and, therefore, theircomplaint should be dismissed as a matter of law.
Even assuming arguendo that the City Council's informational sessions with the BRA violated the Open Meeting Law, any such violations were cured by the duly noticed, open session of the City Council held on December 15, 2004 during which the Urban Renewal Plan Extension was passed. See Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 65, & others v. City Council of Lawrence, 403 Mass. 563, 566 (any violation of the Open Meeting Law through certain private, individual consultations between a city council's president and other members of the council had been cured by subsequent council meetings, held in compliance with the statutory requirement, before the action was commenced). The December 15, 2005 session was held prior to the filing of the instant complaint thus curing any alleged violation of the Open Meeting Law.
12
4. The Plaintiffs failed to show that the alleged "meetings" were relative to matters over which the City Council has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
As stated above, governmental bodies can only be said to have conducted a "meeting" if "a quorum is required in order to make a decision at which any public business or public policy matter over which the governmental body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power is discussed or considered..." G.L. c. 39, § 23A (emphasis added). Furthermore, a governmental body can only "deliberate" on "public business within its jurisdiction." G.L. c. 39, § 23A (emphasis added). It is clear that the City Council's alleged "meetings" did not violate the Open Meeting Law, as the subject matter of these sessions were relative to matters over which the City Council has no supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
The City Council's January 20, 2005 Tularemia Briefing regarding the Boston University tularemia outbreak is a matter of public health. Such matters are the exclusive province of the Boston Public Health Commission, which is "not subject to the supervision of any other department, commission, board, bureau, agency or officer of the city..." St. 1995 c. 147, § 3(a). Since the Public Health Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over public health matters in the City of Boston without oversight from other official government bodies, the City Council's briefing on the Tularemia incident did not violate the Public Meeting Law, as the City Council could not decide or deliberate toward a decision on a matter of public health.
13
5. The Plaintiffs failed show that the City Council was conducting "public business."
The Boston City Council is the legislative body of the city." See St. 1948, c. 452, § 11, as appearing in St. 1951, c. 376, § 1. The City Council may not "directly or indirectly .. . take part in the employment of labor, the making of contracts, or the purchase of materials, supplies or real estate;... nor in the conduct of the executive or administrative business of the city or county; nor in the appointment or removal of any city or county employee; nor in the expenditure of public money except such as may be necessary for the contingent and incidental expenses of the city council." City Council of Boston v. Mayor of Boston. 383 Mass. 716, 723 (1981); see St. 1948, c. 452, § 17G, inserted by St. 1951, c. 376, § 1. The City Council's authority is limited largely to a check on the mayor's executive function through the power of appropriation. Id.; see St. 1948, c. 452, § 17D, inserted by St. 1951, c. 376, § 1. Therefore, matters that are within the scope of "public business" upon which the City Council may deliberate and decide are equally limited. Although there is no prohibition against the City Council discussing matters of public concern, such as the circumstances surrounding the accidental exposure of Boston University personnel to an infectious disease, such discussions are separate and apart from doing "public business," since, as explained above, the City Council is powerless to deliberate or decide on any action beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to show that any of the alleged "meetings" violate the Open Meeting Law, as such "meetings" required no quorum and no deliberations or decisions on matters
14
within the scope of the City Council's jurisdiction occurred. Thus, the plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed as a matter of law.
THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE PLAINTIFFS IS OVERLY BROAD
The plaintiffs request inter alia that the Court invalidate the December 15, 2004 vote of the City Council, which passed the Urban Renewal Plan Extension Order. Such relief is overbroad and not appropriate in light of the claimed allegations. Specifically, the December 15, 2004 vote was cast after a public hearing during which a quorum of the City Council publicly deliberated and passed the Order transmitted by Mayor Menino on October 26, 2004. This session was a "meeting" of the City Council as defined by G.L. c. 39, §23B, and, therefore, its decision to pass the Order should not be invalidated due to allegations regarding other alleged "meetings" during which no such deliberation or decision occurred. Furthermore, as stated above, the duly noticed December 15,2005 session, during which the City Council deliberated the same issue complained of by the plaintiffs, cured any alleged violation of the Open Meeting Law. See Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 65, & others v. City Council ofLawrence. 403 Mass. 563, 566. Therefore, the plaintiffs' request to invalidate the Council's vote, as well as their request for an order requiring the Council to "carry out the provisions of the Open Meeting Law at all future meetings" and all other requests should be denied. .
15
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs failed to state a claim pursuant to G.L. c.39, §23B for which relief can be granted.
WHEREFORE, The Boston City Council and Michael F. Flaherty, as CityCouncil President, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss the Complaintagainst them with prejudice and enter separate and final judgment.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this day a truecopy of the above document was servedupon each party appearing pro se by U.S.class, postage paid.
Ronald G. Nelson
Respectfully submitted,Defendants BOSTON CITY COUNCILand Michael F. Flaherty, as CityCouncil President,
By their attorney,Merita A. HopkinsCorporation Counsel
Mark Sweeney, BBO# 490160Ronald G. Nelson, BBO # 652035Assistant Corporation Counsel.City of Boston Law DepartmentCity Hall, Room 615Boston, MA 02201(617) 635-4097
16
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Monday, May 30, 2005
Response to AFSCME Questionnaire
AFSCME QUESTIONNAIRE FOR BOSTON CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES
2005
Please fill in all of the information below!
NAME: Kevin McCrea _______________________________________________
ADDRESS: 218 West Springfield Street Boston _______________________________________________
ZIP CODE: 02118 _______________________________________________
PHONE NUMBER: 617-267-2453 _______________________________________________
FAX NUMBER: 617-351-2453 _______________________________________________
EMAIL ADDRESS: electkevin@gmail.com _______________________________________________
CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Dr. Clara Lora _______________________________________________
SEAT SOUGHT: City Council at Large _______________________________________________
Please return this questionnaire by ____6/3/05___________
Return to: Andi MullinAFSCME Council 938 Beacon St., 3rd FloorBoston, MA 02108amullin@afscmecouncil93.org(617) 742-7666 (fax)
Call Andi Mullin at (617) 367-6000 x110 with questions1. Why are you running for City Council? What do you hope to accomplish if you are elected?
I am running for City Council to help make Boston better. My main areas of focus will be on housing, education and equal access to government. However, I look forward to bringing honesty, transparency and more professionalism to city government.
2. Have you ever been a member of a labor union? Why do you think labor unions are important? What do you think the role of a labor union should be?
I have not been a member of a labor union. Labor unions are extremely important in providing good middle class jobs, security, and collective bargaining power for their members. The role of the labor union should be to represent its members in a professional manner and advocate for its members to the best of its ability.
3. Collective bargaining is fundamental to what labor unions do. Unions must be free to negotiate in good faith with employers who also are negotiating in good faith. In the past, some unions in Boston have defeated undesirable proposals at the bargaining table, only to have City Councilors and/or the Mayor try to resurrect them through the legislative process. Will you respect the collective bargaining process and refrain from trying to legislatively impose on city workers changes in salary, benefits or working conditions that the city has been unable to win at the bargaining table?
I believe one of the reasons I have been successful in business is that my word, my handshake, means a deal is a deal. One of the reasons I am running for city council is that I want open, honest transparent government. When a deal is made with a contractor, a union, or whomever, that deal should be honored.
4. As you are no doubt aware, the Commonwealth continues to face significant fiscal challenges. A major cause of the problem is the 42 tax cuts the state enacted in the 1990s. These tax cuts eroded the state’s revenue base so dramatically that today we are cutting critical public services to make ends meet. While the Commonwealth has taken significant steps to raise revenue, the state still faces a structural deficit. That deficit cannot be resolved by budget cuts alone – revenue must be part of the picture. Will you vigorously lobby Boston’s state legislators and Senators to restore the income tax and close corporate loopholes to help resolve the budget crisis?
I agree that we must resolve revenue issues. The Boston Globe recently reported that the cost to corporations to do business in Massachusetts was one of the lowest in the nation. The tax burden in Massachusetts and in Boston has been shifted from corporations to private property owners. It does not help things when City Hall is giving away valuable real estate such as Heyward Place, City Hall Plaza and parking spaces in West Roxbury to at below market prices. That is property that we the citizens own, and we are paying for through higher taxes, or lower wages for members of AFSCME for example.
5. The problem of high housing prices is of particular concern to city employees because these employees are required to live in the city. Given the lower wages earned by public sector workers, it is becoming increasingly difficult for City employees to make ends meet given the high costs of housing. What solutions to Boston’s housing crisis would you pursue if you were elected?
Please see my website www.electkevin.us for a more in depth answer, but the synopsis is as follows. First of all I would work to have the 400 acres of excess and foreclosed property that the City of Boston owns disposed of within 3 years. This will do two things, it will increase the tax base and it will provide building opportunites to build new housing. I will advocate for a large portion of that to be median income housing affordable to people such as employees of AFSCME. I will advocate for eliminating the BRA and replacing it with a city planning agency that is answerable to the voters, that will advocate for building more housing affordable to middle class people, not just the wealthy. Furthermore, I would like to initiate a program to make below market rate loans available to City of Boston employees to buy houses within the city. I am a developer, who has built and owns affordable housing in the city of Boston. I understand the process and realize this is one of the biggest problems facing the city, and I will be putting a large portion of my time to working on this issue.
5a. What is your view of the residency requirement?
I believe that residency can a tool to help regenerate the city and help support the middle class.
5b. Would you support a revision to the residency requirement that would require newly hired city employees to live in the city for their first five years of employment, and then be permitted to live elsewhere?
I am not knowledgeable enough about this topic to give an opinion at this time. However, I do believe that this is something that should be negotiated in good faith at the bargaining table.
6. The Boston Municipal Research Bureau (BMRB) has recently proposed a system of providing public services called “competitive service delivery.” AFSCME has thoroughly researched this proposal and determined that the business-backed BMRB has simply come up with a new and fancy way of describing privatization. Like other privatization schemes, “competitive service delivery” will introduce the profit motive to public service delivery, which is not good for taxpayers. Furthermore, while such schemes claim to save money, they actually simply pay workers less and erode their benefits. Would you work with AFSCME to oppose implementation of a “competitive service delivery” proposal?
I am not familiar with “competitive service delivery”. However, I oppose privatization for essential city services.
7. What do you think of privatization in general? Will you oppose efforts to privatize City services?
Please see my previous answer. I do oppose privatization of City services.
8. The City’s civil service system is not working for anyone other than public safety employees, and under Governor Mitt Romney the situation is deteriorating. The Governor is aggressively de-funding the system and leaving commission appointments vacant for months at a time. The City workforce has become more and more demoralized as employees have learned that job opportunities have primarily been awarded for political performance rather than work performance. Common city practices include failure to request promotional civil service exams, failure to appoint from the legal list, and abuse of provisional appointments. What steps would you take to insure that the city operates the system properly? Will you aggressively oppose Governor Romney’s backdoor attempts to further weaken the system?
This is another of the reasons I am running for city council. To oppose the cronyism that this state is rampant with. On my website you will see that I advocate for the posting of all job opportunities on the city's website so everyone will know what jobs are available, what the qualifications are and how to apply. I call for the posting of the resume's of all department heads so that the public can see whether people are qualified for the jobs they have. I am for open, professional government and there is no room in that for political hacks.
9. Traditionally, the AFSCME locals in the City of Boston have enjoyed a close working relationship with many of the City’s elected officials. How would you view your relationship as a City Councilor with the employees of the City?
I have worked with city employees from many different departments. I am proud to say that many of them are supporting my campaign. I have always been impressed with the professionalism of the “soldiers” who work for the city, who are let down by the “generals” above them who maybe political appointees who are not qualified for their jobs. I have promised to have open office hours each week if anyone has a question, idea or complaint I will be available. I look forward to working with the city employees to get their valuable opinions on how to make the city work and run more efficiently, honestly, and professionally.
2005
Please fill in all of the information below!
NAME: Kevin McCrea _______________________________________________
ADDRESS: 218 West Springfield Street Boston _______________________________________________
ZIP CODE: 02118 _______________________________________________
PHONE NUMBER: 617-267-2453 _______________________________________________
FAX NUMBER: 617-351-2453 _______________________________________________
EMAIL ADDRESS: electkevin@gmail.com _______________________________________________
CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Dr. Clara Lora _______________________________________________
SEAT SOUGHT: City Council at Large _______________________________________________
Please return this questionnaire by ____6/3/05___________
Return to: Andi MullinAFSCME Council 938 Beacon St., 3rd FloorBoston, MA 02108amullin@afscmecouncil93.org(617) 742-7666 (fax)
Call Andi Mullin at (617) 367-6000 x110 with questions1. Why are you running for City Council? What do you hope to accomplish if you are elected?
I am running for City Council to help make Boston better. My main areas of focus will be on housing, education and equal access to government. However, I look forward to bringing honesty, transparency and more professionalism to city government.
2. Have you ever been a member of a labor union? Why do you think labor unions are important? What do you think the role of a labor union should be?
I have not been a member of a labor union. Labor unions are extremely important in providing good middle class jobs, security, and collective bargaining power for their members. The role of the labor union should be to represent its members in a professional manner and advocate for its members to the best of its ability.
3. Collective bargaining is fundamental to what labor unions do. Unions must be free to negotiate in good faith with employers who also are negotiating in good faith. In the past, some unions in Boston have defeated undesirable proposals at the bargaining table, only to have City Councilors and/or the Mayor try to resurrect them through the legislative process. Will you respect the collective bargaining process and refrain from trying to legislatively impose on city workers changes in salary, benefits or working conditions that the city has been unable to win at the bargaining table?
I believe one of the reasons I have been successful in business is that my word, my handshake, means a deal is a deal. One of the reasons I am running for city council is that I want open, honest transparent government. When a deal is made with a contractor, a union, or whomever, that deal should be honored.
4. As you are no doubt aware, the Commonwealth continues to face significant fiscal challenges. A major cause of the problem is the 42 tax cuts the state enacted in the 1990s. These tax cuts eroded the state’s revenue base so dramatically that today we are cutting critical public services to make ends meet. While the Commonwealth has taken significant steps to raise revenue, the state still faces a structural deficit. That deficit cannot be resolved by budget cuts alone – revenue must be part of the picture. Will you vigorously lobby Boston’s state legislators and Senators to restore the income tax and close corporate loopholes to help resolve the budget crisis?
I agree that we must resolve revenue issues. The Boston Globe recently reported that the cost to corporations to do business in Massachusetts was one of the lowest in the nation. The tax burden in Massachusetts and in Boston has been shifted from corporations to private property owners. It does not help things when City Hall is giving away valuable real estate such as Heyward Place, City Hall Plaza and parking spaces in West Roxbury to at below market prices. That is property that we the citizens own, and we are paying for through higher taxes, or lower wages for members of AFSCME for example.
5. The problem of high housing prices is of particular concern to city employees because these employees are required to live in the city. Given the lower wages earned by public sector workers, it is becoming increasingly difficult for City employees to make ends meet given the high costs of housing. What solutions to Boston’s housing crisis would you pursue if you were elected?
Please see my website www.electkevin.us for a more in depth answer, but the synopsis is as follows. First of all I would work to have the 400 acres of excess and foreclosed property that the City of Boston owns disposed of within 3 years. This will do two things, it will increase the tax base and it will provide building opportunites to build new housing. I will advocate for a large portion of that to be median income housing affordable to people such as employees of AFSCME. I will advocate for eliminating the BRA and replacing it with a city planning agency that is answerable to the voters, that will advocate for building more housing affordable to middle class people, not just the wealthy. Furthermore, I would like to initiate a program to make below market rate loans available to City of Boston employees to buy houses within the city. I am a developer, who has built and owns affordable housing in the city of Boston. I understand the process and realize this is one of the biggest problems facing the city, and I will be putting a large portion of my time to working on this issue.
5a. What is your view of the residency requirement?
I believe that residency can a tool to help regenerate the city and help support the middle class.
5b. Would you support a revision to the residency requirement that would require newly hired city employees to live in the city for their first five years of employment, and then be permitted to live elsewhere?
I am not knowledgeable enough about this topic to give an opinion at this time. However, I do believe that this is something that should be negotiated in good faith at the bargaining table.
6. The Boston Municipal Research Bureau (BMRB) has recently proposed a system of providing public services called “competitive service delivery.” AFSCME has thoroughly researched this proposal and determined that the business-backed BMRB has simply come up with a new and fancy way of describing privatization. Like other privatization schemes, “competitive service delivery” will introduce the profit motive to public service delivery, which is not good for taxpayers. Furthermore, while such schemes claim to save money, they actually simply pay workers less and erode their benefits. Would you work with AFSCME to oppose implementation of a “competitive service delivery” proposal?
I am not familiar with “competitive service delivery”. However, I oppose privatization for essential city services.
7. What do you think of privatization in general? Will you oppose efforts to privatize City services?
Please see my previous answer. I do oppose privatization of City services.
8. The City’s civil service system is not working for anyone other than public safety employees, and under Governor Mitt Romney the situation is deteriorating. The Governor is aggressively de-funding the system and leaving commission appointments vacant for months at a time. The City workforce has become more and more demoralized as employees have learned that job opportunities have primarily been awarded for political performance rather than work performance. Common city practices include failure to request promotional civil service exams, failure to appoint from the legal list, and abuse of provisional appointments. What steps would you take to insure that the city operates the system properly? Will you aggressively oppose Governor Romney’s backdoor attempts to further weaken the system?
This is another of the reasons I am running for city council. To oppose the cronyism that this state is rampant with. On my website you will see that I advocate for the posting of all job opportunities on the city's website so everyone will know what jobs are available, what the qualifications are and how to apply. I call for the posting of the resume's of all department heads so that the public can see whether people are qualified for the jobs they have. I am for open, professional government and there is no room in that for political hacks.
9. Traditionally, the AFSCME locals in the City of Boston have enjoyed a close working relationship with many of the City’s elected officials. How would you view your relationship as a City Councilor with the employees of the City?
I have worked with city employees from many different departments. I am proud to say that many of them are supporting my campaign. I have always been impressed with the professionalism of the “soldiers” who work for the city, who are let down by the “generals” above them who maybe political appointees who are not qualified for their jobs. I have promised to have open office hours each week if anyone has a question, idea or complaint I will be available. I look forward to working with the city employees to get their valuable opinions on how to make the city work and run more efficiently, honestly, and professionally.
Anyone else frustrated with the City of Boston Website???
I tried to access the City of Boston calender this morning around 9 a.m. to see what events were taking place in Boston for Memorial Day.
Perhaps I was doing something wrong, but the website would only allow me to look at Tuesday the 31st and beyond. The site is so frustrating, hard to find information, not arranged in a clear concise way....
thoughts??? anyone else having problems accessing information?
I hope Memorial Day was safe and wonderful for you and your friends and family.
kevin
Perhaps I was doing something wrong, but the website would only allow me to look at Tuesday the 31st and beyond. The site is so frustrating, hard to find information, not arranged in a clear concise way....
thoughts??? anyone else having problems accessing information?
I hope Memorial Day was safe and wonderful for you and your friends and family.
kevin
Letter to Police Patrolmen's Association
May 31, 2005
Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, Inc.
9-11 Shetland Street
Boston, MA 02119
RE: Endorsement Questionnaire
Dear Sirs:
Please find enclosed my answers to your questionnaire. I look forward to hopefully working with the police to make this city safer, better, and more professionally run.
I have been trying to set up a meeting with Jim Barry for almost 3 months now, but he has been quite busy. If he, or someone else, would have the time to meet with me I would much appreciate it. I look forward to learning the needs, wants, and ideas that the police have to improve the city.
Finally, I'd like to thank the Patrolmen's Association for supporting my proposal for the renovation of the Area D Police station which would have included two median income units designated for police officers. Vice President MacGillivray came to that public forum on our behalf, and although the BRA decided it was a better use of the building to install more high end condominiums, I appreciate your support. I look forward to working on making future projects affordable for the police that I think are a big asset to any neighborhood in Boston.
Sincerely,
Kevin McCreaCandidate for City Council at Large
Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, Inc.
9-11 Shetland Street
Boston, MA 02119
RE: Endorsement Questionnaire
Dear Sirs:
Please find enclosed my answers to your questionnaire. I look forward to hopefully working with the police to make this city safer, better, and more professionally run.
I have been trying to set up a meeting with Jim Barry for almost 3 months now, but he has been quite busy. If he, or someone else, would have the time to meet with me I would much appreciate it. I look forward to learning the needs, wants, and ideas that the police have to improve the city.
Finally, I'd like to thank the Patrolmen's Association for supporting my proposal for the renovation of the Area D Police station which would have included two median income units designated for police officers. Vice President MacGillivray came to that public forum on our behalf, and although the BRA decided it was a better use of the building to install more high end condominiums, I appreciate your support. I look forward to working on making future projects affordable for the police that I think are a big asset to any neighborhood in Boston.
Sincerely,
Kevin McCreaCandidate for City Council at Large
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Letter to City Councilors about Open Meeting Law
Kevin McCrea
218 West Springfield Street
Boston, MA 02118
617-267-2453
617-351-2453 (fax)
May 24, 2005
Dear City Councilor:
My name is Kevin McCrea and I am running for City Council at Large. As you may know I have filed suit in Suffolk Superior Court along with fellow residents Shirley Kressel and Kathleen Devine alleging that the City Council has violated the Open Meeting Law. You may find the complaint on my blog, located at www.electkevin.us. In addition, I have filed a complaint with the District Attorney's office, following up on the complaint that Kathleen Devine filed in January of this year. That complaint resulted in a letter from the District Attorney to the City Council which reads ”This Office recommends that any meeting to which all City Councilors are invited should be posted pursuant to the Open Meeting Law.”
As you are aware, all members of the City Council are invited to a ”Monthly Council Conversations with BRA Director” located in room #924 at City Hall. The next meeting is May 26, 2005 at noon. The meeting has not been posted in accordance with the Open Meeting Law and is not open to the public. No councilor has explained why this meeting should be an exception to the Open Meeting Law. My understanding is that councilors Yancey, Turner, Arroyo and Hennigan boycott these meetings because they believe they violate the Open Meeting Law. I agree with them that such a meeting violates the letter and the spirit of the Open Meeting Law. As a leader in this city I urge you to not attend these meetings, and speak out for an open, honest, transparent government.
I will be at City Hall on Thursday at noon with my camera. I have invited members of the press to attend. I look forward to your explanation as to why it is good government policy for the City Council and the BRA to hold closed monthly meetings. If you do attend the meeting, perhaps you could ask Director Maloney why the citizens of Boston have not received one penny of the $23 million dollars that Heyward Place could have netted the City.
I am thanking you in advance for your commitment to good government.
Sincerely,
Kevin McCreaCandidate for City Council at Large
218 West Springfield Street
Boston, MA 02118
617-267-2453
617-351-2453 (fax)
May 24, 2005
Dear City Councilor:
My name is Kevin McCrea and I am running for City Council at Large. As you may know I have filed suit in Suffolk Superior Court along with fellow residents Shirley Kressel and Kathleen Devine alleging that the City Council has violated the Open Meeting Law. You may find the complaint on my blog, located at www.electkevin.us. In addition, I have filed a complaint with the District Attorney's office, following up on the complaint that Kathleen Devine filed in January of this year. That complaint resulted in a letter from the District Attorney to the City Council which reads ”This Office recommends that any meeting to which all City Councilors are invited should be posted pursuant to the Open Meeting Law.”
As you are aware, all members of the City Council are invited to a ”Monthly Council Conversations with BRA Director” located in room #924 at City Hall. The next meeting is May 26, 2005 at noon. The meeting has not been posted in accordance with the Open Meeting Law and is not open to the public. No councilor has explained why this meeting should be an exception to the Open Meeting Law. My understanding is that councilors Yancey, Turner, Arroyo and Hennigan boycott these meetings because they believe they violate the Open Meeting Law. I agree with them that such a meeting violates the letter and the spirit of the Open Meeting Law. As a leader in this city I urge you to not attend these meetings, and speak out for an open, honest, transparent government.
I will be at City Hall on Thursday at noon with my camera. I have invited members of the press to attend. I look forward to your explanation as to why it is good government policy for the City Council and the BRA to hold closed monthly meetings. If you do attend the meeting, perhaps you could ask Director Maloney why the citizens of Boston have not received one penny of the $23 million dollars that Heyward Place could have netted the City.
I am thanking you in advance for your commitment to good government.
Sincerely,
Kevin McCreaCandidate for City Council at Large
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Explanation of BRA by Shirley Kressel in South End News
guest opinion
City council must stand up to Boston Redevelopment Authority
by Shirley Kressel
December 15, 2004 was a happy day for the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA). Under intense pressure from the BRA and Mayor Thomas Menino, the Boston City Council voted away its power over the term limits of the BRA’s 40-year Urban Renewal Plans (URP), which are set to expire over the course of the next decade. Now, the BRA is trying to eliminate the last remaining oversight over URP terms: review by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). After years of petitioning the DHCD for even short “minor modification” extensions, the BRA is now telling DHCD that it doesn’t have jurisdiction because long-term extensions aren’t “major modifications.” This, of course, contradicts the BRA determination — written right into the order originally submitted to council — that they are indeed major and do require DHCD approval. Boston’s urban renewal plans were originally authorized by the city council under the post-war Federal Housing Act of 1949 (also known as the Urban Renewal Act) that aimed to eliminate urban “blight” in cities around the country by funding the taking of land and property via eminent domain. The federal program ended in the 1970s but continues under state oversight. In Boston, we’re still living with the bad ideas (the construction of City Hall Plaza to name just one) that came from the dismantling of the West End and Scollay Square. But the true failures of urban renewal plans become obvious when the deals and developers are scrutinized. Much of the land taking occurred in lower-income neighborhoods populated by minorities. Buildings were demolished and the land sold to favored developers for luxury housing and office towers.To listen to the BRA and its defenders, one would believe that eminent domain takings are a thing of the past. But the BRA has completed more than 200 takings since 1990. In areas designated for urban renewal, the BRA can take land and funnel it to favored developers without public oversight (such as part of the site for the South End BioLab to the Boston University Medical Center, and Hayward Place to Millennium). It can take buildings and evict tenants for the owners (as it tried to do at the Ames Building, 1 Court Street). It can take city property without paying a dime and control all sale or lease arrangements (Hayward Place, and City Hall Plaza — yes, taken again in 1996, this time from the taxpayers). It can eliminate all zoning on a site by adding adjacent land it has taken for the developer and designating the site a “U-District" (Loews Hotel in Park Plaza Area). It can share the profits of development it regulates, becoming an “equity partner” (Rowes Wharf) or take an “anti-speculation fee” after assisting speculation (Back Bay’s Piano Row property assembled by Henry Kara, the market value of which went from $2.5 to $14 million with the addition of a White Fund parcel the BRA took from the city for Kara and a U-District, yielding a 20 percent cut to the BRA; it is now to be an Emerson dorm. The George White Fund is a public charitable trust bequeathed to the city in 1922; its land and buildings are supposed to be used for city agencies or non-profit organizations. When the parcel was originally taken, it was for a hotel development, not Emerson College.). It also regulates development on its own land (South Station air rights).Through eminent domain, the BRA has amassed a huge land empire of its own, over 400 parcels on 250 acres, exempt from property tax. When URPs expire, these properties, for which the BRA was meant to be the custodian until they were assigned for redevelopment, should be conveyed to the city, which authorized their taking under the URPs. The city should get the sale or lease proceeds, and get them back on the property tax rolls.But if the BRA gets its way, these plans will never expire. Last October, Mayor Thomas Menino asked the council to approve a proposal for a decade-long extension of all the URPs. It included language changing the council’s powers over URPs, most significantly replacing the council’s oversight of “major” modifications with a new power to approve URP changes allowing a density increase of more than 7.5 percent over the potential square footage of construction in the URP area. District Two City Councilor James Kelly and his Committee on Planning and Economic Development delivered an approving majority (At-Large Councilors Maura Henningan and Felix Arroyo, District Seven Councilor Chuck Turner and District Four Councilor Charles Yancey all opposed the measure), boasting that the council had won more oversight over the BRA. In fact, the council gained no power, and lost what little it had. It’s hard to believe that the councilors who voted for this change didn’t understand this at the time, but their new “power” is meaningless: URP “potential density” has never been calculated — in fact, it is impossible to calculate. As a result, the council now no longer has any authority over major modifications of URPs — including the extension of such plans, since the extension of a plan is, in and of itself, a major modification. Why is the continuation of these obsolete, decades old URPs so important to the BRA and the mayor? Well, Boston’s URPs cover about 15 percent of the city, including most of the city’s prime areas for development. Control over profits from development and land speculation in these areas brings huge financial benefits to the BRA and political power to the mayor, whom the BRA serves. The BRA (unlike any other renewal agency in the country) is also the city’s planning and zoning agency, and combines these powers for even greater control over development. Further, the existence of the URPs also legitimizes the BRA. Without the BRA’s original raison d’etre, people might start to question why we still have an urban renewal authority, and why it’s running the city’s planning and zoning.So far, the state doesn’t seem as willing our city councilors — who acted out of ignorance, complicity, or cowardice — to forego oversight over the URP extensions, rejecting the BRA’s self-contradictory argument. But DHCD is a champion of urban renewal, and simply demands individual requests for extending each URP as its term expires, rather than agreeing to an advance blanket extension. DHCD already granted a 60-day extension for five soon-to-expire URPs, to give the BRA time to submit individual requests. They will probably be approved, since local pre-approval is in place. So what does all of this mean for the South End? Well, the 625-acre South End URP was set to expire in December 2005. Thanks to the council’s vote, it may never expire. So the threat of eminent domain will continue to create uncertainty for property owners, tenants and potential investors. The only way we’ll be free of this is to elect city councilors who will find a way to re-enfranchise the council and protect us. Shirley Kressel, a landscape architect and urban designer, is one of the founders of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods. She can be reached at shirley.kressel@verizon.net.
City council must stand up to Boston Redevelopment Authority
by Shirley Kressel
December 15, 2004 was a happy day for the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA). Under intense pressure from the BRA and Mayor Thomas Menino, the Boston City Council voted away its power over the term limits of the BRA’s 40-year Urban Renewal Plans (URP), which are set to expire over the course of the next decade. Now, the BRA is trying to eliminate the last remaining oversight over URP terms: review by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). After years of petitioning the DHCD for even short “minor modification” extensions, the BRA is now telling DHCD that it doesn’t have jurisdiction because long-term extensions aren’t “major modifications.” This, of course, contradicts the BRA determination — written right into the order originally submitted to council — that they are indeed major and do require DHCD approval. Boston’s urban renewal plans were originally authorized by the city council under the post-war Federal Housing Act of 1949 (also known as the Urban Renewal Act) that aimed to eliminate urban “blight” in cities around the country by funding the taking of land and property via eminent domain. The federal program ended in the 1970s but continues under state oversight. In Boston, we’re still living with the bad ideas (the construction of City Hall Plaza to name just one) that came from the dismantling of the West End and Scollay Square. But the true failures of urban renewal plans become obvious when the deals and developers are scrutinized. Much of the land taking occurred in lower-income neighborhoods populated by minorities. Buildings were demolished and the land sold to favored developers for luxury housing and office towers.To listen to the BRA and its defenders, one would believe that eminent domain takings are a thing of the past. But the BRA has completed more than 200 takings since 1990. In areas designated for urban renewal, the BRA can take land and funnel it to favored developers without public oversight (such as part of the site for the South End BioLab to the Boston University Medical Center, and Hayward Place to Millennium). It can take buildings and evict tenants for the owners (as it tried to do at the Ames Building, 1 Court Street). It can take city property without paying a dime and control all sale or lease arrangements (Hayward Place, and City Hall Plaza — yes, taken again in 1996, this time from the taxpayers). It can eliminate all zoning on a site by adding adjacent land it has taken for the developer and designating the site a “U-District" (Loews Hotel in Park Plaza Area). It can share the profits of development it regulates, becoming an “equity partner” (Rowes Wharf) or take an “anti-speculation fee” after assisting speculation (Back Bay’s Piano Row property assembled by Henry Kara, the market value of which went from $2.5 to $14 million with the addition of a White Fund parcel the BRA took from the city for Kara and a U-District, yielding a 20 percent cut to the BRA; it is now to be an Emerson dorm. The George White Fund is a public charitable trust bequeathed to the city in 1922; its land and buildings are supposed to be used for city agencies or non-profit organizations. When the parcel was originally taken, it was for a hotel development, not Emerson College.). It also regulates development on its own land (South Station air rights).Through eminent domain, the BRA has amassed a huge land empire of its own, over 400 parcels on 250 acres, exempt from property tax. When URPs expire, these properties, for which the BRA was meant to be the custodian until they were assigned for redevelopment, should be conveyed to the city, which authorized their taking under the URPs. The city should get the sale or lease proceeds, and get them back on the property tax rolls.But if the BRA gets its way, these plans will never expire. Last October, Mayor Thomas Menino asked the council to approve a proposal for a decade-long extension of all the URPs. It included language changing the council’s powers over URPs, most significantly replacing the council’s oversight of “major” modifications with a new power to approve URP changes allowing a density increase of more than 7.5 percent over the potential square footage of construction in the URP area. District Two City Councilor James Kelly and his Committee on Planning and Economic Development delivered an approving majority (At-Large Councilors Maura Henningan and Felix Arroyo, District Seven Councilor Chuck Turner and District Four Councilor Charles Yancey all opposed the measure), boasting that the council had won more oversight over the BRA. In fact, the council gained no power, and lost what little it had. It’s hard to believe that the councilors who voted for this change didn’t understand this at the time, but their new “power” is meaningless: URP “potential density” has never been calculated — in fact, it is impossible to calculate. As a result, the council now no longer has any authority over major modifications of URPs — including the extension of such plans, since the extension of a plan is, in and of itself, a major modification. Why is the continuation of these obsolete, decades old URPs so important to the BRA and the mayor? Well, Boston’s URPs cover about 15 percent of the city, including most of the city’s prime areas for development. Control over profits from development and land speculation in these areas brings huge financial benefits to the BRA and political power to the mayor, whom the BRA serves. The BRA (unlike any other renewal agency in the country) is also the city’s planning and zoning agency, and combines these powers for even greater control over development. Further, the existence of the URPs also legitimizes the BRA. Without the BRA’s original raison d’etre, people might start to question why we still have an urban renewal authority, and why it’s running the city’s planning and zoning.So far, the state doesn’t seem as willing our city councilors — who acted out of ignorance, complicity, or cowardice — to forego oversight over the URP extensions, rejecting the BRA’s self-contradictory argument. But DHCD is a champion of urban renewal, and simply demands individual requests for extending each URP as its term expires, rather than agreeing to an advance blanket extension. DHCD already granted a 60-day extension for five soon-to-expire URPs, to give the BRA time to submit individual requests. They will probably be approved, since local pre-approval is in place. So what does all of this mean for the South End? Well, the 625-acre South End URP was set to expire in December 2005. Thanks to the council’s vote, it may never expire. So the threat of eminent domain will continue to create uncertainty for property owners, tenants and potential investors. The only way we’ll be free of this is to elect city councilors who will find a way to re-enfranchise the council and protect us. Shirley Kressel, a landscape architect and urban designer, is one of the founders of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods. She can be reached at shirley.kressel@verizon.net.
Monday, May 23, 2005
May 23, 2005 Update---NO DOUGHNUT ZONE!
I was impressed with today's story in the Boston Globe about councilor Mike Ross's concern for the health of city employees. Although the "no doughnut zone" might be a bit sensationalist, living a healthier lifestyle is good for all of us. Will he be a leader in introducing legislation that city workers who need to do physical activities to perform their duties be required to pass a yearly physical?
I've been very busy the last couple weeks, and I am quite exhausted. We have accumulated over 1000 signatures for the ballot I believe, and I want to thank all the people who have helped out: Shirley, Chuck, Jeff, Angela, Elisa, Bill, Kathleen, Paul, and others and of course my wonderfully supportive fiance, Clara. I also wanted to thank the gentlemen and ladies at the election department, who are VERY helpful, supportive, objective and professional. If all city services worked like they do, we'd have fewer potholes, less trash, and I wouldn't have to sue to get open and honest government.
I have worked about 21 straight days at the job I am trying to complete on time. It will be a relief to get it done and start campaigning virtually full time. I am jealous of the other candidates who have been able to take leaves of absence from their jobs!!!
Some anecdotes: I was at the south end youth baseball opening day parade where I helped put together a team to serve about 2000 hotdogs in an hour. (thanks to the other volunteers!) I had one of the 9 year olds on my team on my shoulders while I was talking to Red Sox owner Larry Lucchino. Next to him was Michael Flaherty, city council president. I said "hi mike", and put out my hand to shake his. He refused to shake my hand! In front of the kids who we teach to shake hands after each game and to be good sports. Then during the speech portion of the ceremony he spoke about sportmanship! Very hypocritical I think! Hey, Mike it is only democracy, I'm only running for office. Even though the city council voted to shorten the period of time to collect signatures (I thought democrats were in favor of democracy?), people still do have the right to run, don't they?
Another incumbent advantage is that the only things that people are allowed to put next to their names is whether they are a current or former office holder, or if they are a veteran. I believe that either nothing should be put next to people's names, or else you may put any 8 words you want as long as they aren't vulgar.
Boston should be an example to the rest of the world for open transparent government, we are the cradle of democracy after all.
Had a great brunch at Mel King's on Sunday, where I learned many things, including (again) the value of listening to people.
Well, more soon I hope, please come to my Texas Hold'em fundraiser this friday at my place at 218 west springfield street. Say hi to my future inlaws who are staying for a week, or my summer intern, jeff sostak who has been great fun and help so far!
peace, love and understanding,
kevin
I've been very busy the last couple weeks, and I am quite exhausted. We have accumulated over 1000 signatures for the ballot I believe, and I want to thank all the people who have helped out: Shirley, Chuck, Jeff, Angela, Elisa, Bill, Kathleen, Paul, and others and of course my wonderfully supportive fiance, Clara. I also wanted to thank the gentlemen and ladies at the election department, who are VERY helpful, supportive, objective and professional. If all city services worked like they do, we'd have fewer potholes, less trash, and I wouldn't have to sue to get open and honest government.
I have worked about 21 straight days at the job I am trying to complete on time. It will be a relief to get it done and start campaigning virtually full time. I am jealous of the other candidates who have been able to take leaves of absence from their jobs!!!
Some anecdotes: I was at the south end youth baseball opening day parade where I helped put together a team to serve about 2000 hotdogs in an hour. (thanks to the other volunteers!) I had one of the 9 year olds on my team on my shoulders while I was talking to Red Sox owner Larry Lucchino. Next to him was Michael Flaherty, city council president. I said "hi mike", and put out my hand to shake his. He refused to shake my hand! In front of the kids who we teach to shake hands after each game and to be good sports. Then during the speech portion of the ceremony he spoke about sportmanship! Very hypocritical I think! Hey, Mike it is only democracy, I'm only running for office. Even though the city council voted to shorten the period of time to collect signatures (I thought democrats were in favor of democracy?), people still do have the right to run, don't they?
Another incumbent advantage is that the only things that people are allowed to put next to their names is whether they are a current or former office holder, or if they are a veteran. I believe that either nothing should be put next to people's names, or else you may put any 8 words you want as long as they aren't vulgar.
Boston should be an example to the rest of the world for open transparent government, we are the cradle of democracy after all.
Had a great brunch at Mel King's on Sunday, where I learned many things, including (again) the value of listening to people.
Well, more soon I hope, please come to my Texas Hold'em fundraiser this friday at my place at 218 west springfield street. Say hi to my future inlaws who are staying for a week, or my summer intern, jeff sostak who has been great fun and help so far!
peace, love and understanding,
kevin
Compliance Officer hiding from view???
Here is a letter Shirley Kressel recently sent to BRA director Maloney. My experience is similar. I recently tried to get some compliance information on a project in the south end. I was passed around to 4 different people who told me that the project wasn't a BRA project. I called the environment department who informed me that yes it was a BRA project. When they realized I was running for city council, they admitted that yes it was a BRA project but that I would have to file a freedom of information act to get any information. How about some open, honest government??? What are they hiding up there????
Mark,
As we passed in the halls at City Hall last week, I asked you about yourprogress in scheduling a public presentation by Christine Colley, ComplianceOfficer. You told me that there would be no such meeting. Since you didnot respond to my past e-mail messages, I was not aware that you hadintended to ignore our request for such a presentation.As I mentioned, Christine agreed that this was a good resolution when shecancelled our meeting due to the arrival of another ABN member, NedFlaherty, on May 3. You said you don't think she did agree on that; pleasecheck with Christine. My understanding was that she did, and she suggestedI speak to you about arranging it.In any case, it would be a major breach of obligation and trust for the BRAto hire a Compliance Officer because "an unkept promise is a lie," and thento refuse to tell the citizens to whom those promises were made what she isdoing. If the creation of Christine's position was meant to improve theBRA's standing in the eyes of the community, this is not a good way toaccomplish that goal -- particularly after the unauspicious start to her jobin October, when a large group of Chinatown and other residents had to stagea sit-in at the BRA office because she would not come out of her office andmeet her constituents on her first day at work, to receive the list ofcommitments they brought to help her get started.If you are refusing to host a public progress report on the work of the BRACompliance Officer, I think many people in the neighborhoods will be veryunhappy; I've gotten many questions about it. People cannot understand whythe BRA won't even discuss the progress of the work, since the whole purposewas to bring information to the community about commitments made to thecommunity. Who was to be the recipient of Christine's work, if not thepeople whose promises were unkept?If you need to receive more letters to demonstrate interest, we can arrangethat.I hope you will reconsider and demonstrate the responsiveness, transparencyand accountability you promised when you announced the appointment of aCompliance Officer.ShirleyShirley Kressel27 Hereford StreetBoston, MA 02115617-421-0835 home/work617-515-3403 cell
Mark,
As we passed in the halls at City Hall last week, I asked you about yourprogress in scheduling a public presentation by Christine Colley, ComplianceOfficer. You told me that there would be no such meeting. Since you didnot respond to my past e-mail messages, I was not aware that you hadintended to ignore our request for such a presentation.As I mentioned, Christine agreed that this was a good resolution when shecancelled our meeting due to the arrival of another ABN member, NedFlaherty, on May 3. You said you don't think she did agree on that; pleasecheck with Christine. My understanding was that she did, and she suggestedI speak to you about arranging it.In any case, it would be a major breach of obligation and trust for the BRAto hire a Compliance Officer because "an unkept promise is a lie," and thento refuse to tell the citizens to whom those promises were made what she isdoing. If the creation of Christine's position was meant to improve theBRA's standing in the eyes of the community, this is not a good way toaccomplish that goal -- particularly after the unauspicious start to her jobin October, when a large group of Chinatown and other residents had to stagea sit-in at the BRA office because she would not come out of her office andmeet her constituents on her first day at work, to receive the list ofcommitments they brought to help her get started.If you are refusing to host a public progress report on the work of the BRACompliance Officer, I think many people in the neighborhoods will be veryunhappy; I've gotten many questions about it. People cannot understand whythe BRA won't even discuss the progress of the work, since the whole purposewas to bring information to the community about commitments made to thecommunity. Who was to be the recipient of Christine's work, if not thepeople whose promises were unkept?If you need to receive more letters to demonstrate interest, we can arrangethat.I hope you will reconsider and demonstrate the responsiveness, transparencyand accountability you promised when you announced the appointment of aCompliance Officer.ShirleyShirley Kressel27 Hereford StreetBoston, MA 02115617-421-0835 home/work617-515-3403 cell
Mayor wasting more taxpayer money???
I heard an "unsubstantiated" report today that I thought the citizens might be interested in. I have not had the chance to check the veracity of it, perhaps some people could look into it.
Apparently in an attempt to put his name out there in public in even brighter letters the Mayor has required the DPW to require its contractors to put up new, flashier, neon-esque signs with the mayor's name on them. The interesting twist however, is that there is no money in the contracts to pay for these signs. So, the scuttlebutt is that the DPW is telling its contractors to charge extra for materials to cover the costs of these signs. For example, if a job requires 10 tons of asphalt the DPW is telling the contractors to charge for 11 tons or 12 tons, whatever the amount to cover the cost of the signs.
I wonder why when we need more money for schools, we need new "men working" type signs with the mayor's name on it?
As I stated on my website, I believe it is an incredible waste of money to put people's names on signs that will have to be changed at some point. This is money that will have to be spent at some point that can go for something much more important like books or teachers. Or maybe good street signage!
Apparently in an attempt to put his name out there in public in even brighter letters the Mayor has required the DPW to require its contractors to put up new, flashier, neon-esque signs with the mayor's name on them. The interesting twist however, is that there is no money in the contracts to pay for these signs. So, the scuttlebutt is that the DPW is telling its contractors to charge extra for materials to cover the costs of these signs. For example, if a job requires 10 tons of asphalt the DPW is telling the contractors to charge for 11 tons or 12 tons, whatever the amount to cover the cost of the signs.
I wonder why when we need more money for schools, we need new "men working" type signs with the mayor's name on it?
As I stated on my website, I believe it is an incredible waste of money to put people's names on signs that will have to be changed at some point. This is money that will have to be spent at some point that can go for something much more important like books or teachers. Or maybe good street signage!
Thursday, May 12, 2005
On the BRA trail in Roxbury
My fiancee and I attended a BRA forum on zoning changes (sound familiar?) Gareth Saunders, Chuck Turner and Charles Yancey were there along with concerned Roxbury residents listening to the re-processed BRA speech about why allowing buildings in smaller lots is a "good thing." Yeah, right! Nobody was buying what the BRA was selling at this meeting! One Roxbury resident in fact was so offended by the BRA's proposal that she asked the speaker: "Sir, are you a moral man?" At the Q&A session, Kevin decided to take a poll and asked all those in attendance to raise their hands if they agreed with what the BRA was proposing, no hands. Then he asked for people to raise their hands if they disagreed with the proposed "clarification of the code", all hands shot up! We've decided to help out the BRA and conduct this kind of poll at every one of their meetings that we are able to attend. You know, help them keep tabs on how their idea is playing out across the city! The BRA might not believe in democracy, but Kevin and I do and he's going to help them see how the process works. Then it was off to the Fenway High School to a Project Hip Hop fundraiser that Kevin was graciously invited to speak at by Shawnte Smith, for beloved teacher Obain Attouoman who has been on the brink of being deported. Unfortunately, we arrived too late to speak, but I did get a chance to meet some great kids and gather some more signatures for my plight to get Kevin on the ballot. NOTE: This blog was submitted by Dr. Clara Lora, betrothed to Kevin McCrea.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Kressel, Devine and McCrea file suit against City Council
On Friday, May 6, 2005 Plaintiffs Shirley Kressel, Kathleen Devine and I filed suit against the Boston City Council to enforce the Open Meeting Law. The complaint is as follows:
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, SS SUPERIOR COURT C.A. No.
)Kevin McCrea, Shirley Kressel, )Kathleen Devine ) Plaintiffs ) )v. ) )Michael F. Flaherty and the )Boston City Council ) ) Defendants ) )
COMPLAINT FOR ORDER REQUIRING THE BOSTON CITY COUNCIL TO COMPLY WITH THE OPEN MEETING LAW
1. This is an action for an order requiring the Boston City Council to carry out the provisions of the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. c.39 sec. 23B. Despite the clear language of c.39 sec. 23B and a determination by the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office, the defendants, Boston City Council and Council President Flaherty continue to conduct meetings in violation of the Open Meeting Law. Based on these actions, Plaintiff’s McCrea, Devine, and Kressel ask the Court to issue an appropriate order requiring the Boston City Council to carry out all provisions of the Open Meeting Law for all future meetings. In addition it is requested the Court take remedial actions for past meetings.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE2. This action is brought under G.L. c. 39 sec. 23B §1.3. Venue is appropriate pursuant to G.L. c. 223, §1and 9.PARTIES4. Plaintiff Kevin McCrea is a registered voter residing in the City of Boston in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.5. Plaintiff Shirley Kressel is a registered voter residing in the City of Boston in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 6. Plaintiff Kathleen Devine is registered voter residing in the City of Boston in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 7. Defendant Boston City Council is a governmental body within the City of Boston governed by M.G.L. c. 39 Section 23B.8. Defendant Michael F. Flaherty is a City Councilor and is the President of the Boston City Council. The President is responsible for convening and overseeing meetings of the Boston City Council. FACTS9. The Boston City Council (hereinafter referred to as “City Council”) regularly holds meetings for the purpose of deciding on or deliberating towards decisions.10. There are 13 members of the Boston City Council. A quorum of the City Council is 7 members. 11. On February 5, 2003 Councilor Felix Arroyo, in response to a BRA effort to extend Boston's Urban Renewal Plans without the required City Council review, filed for a public hearing on the issue. No hearing was scheduled by the City Council President. (see attachment 1)12. On June 3, 2003, an unnoticed meeting of City Council was held in Council President Michael Flaherty’s office to discuss a BRA request for Council approval of Urban Renewal Plan extensions. After this meeting, another meeting, to be followed by a series of meetings, on this topic, were planned. (see attachment 2)13. On June 19, 2003, the first of these unnoticed meetings was held in the City Council Curley Room. Plaintiff Kressel learned of the meeting, requested permission to attend and did attend. She observed that the purpose of the meeting was for the BRA to provide information to the Council that would allay Council objections and encourage Council acceptance of the Urban Renewal Plan extensions.14. On August 14, 2003, the BRA Director, Mark Maloney, hosted a meeting with the City Council to discuss “the future of Boston’s Urban Renewal Program.” (see attachment 3)15. On September 17, 2003, Councilor Flaherty sent an invitation to all Councilors for regular monthly meetings “relative to urban renewal” with the BRA in the BRA Director's conference room. (see attachment 4)16. Councilor Felix Arroyo wrote several letters to the City Council and the BRA expressing concern that these meetings violated the Open Meeting Law. (see attachments 5,6,7)
17. On August 31, 2004 the BRA notified all members of the City Council of the schedule of monthly meetings of city councilors and the BRA. All councilors were invited to attend each meeting. The first meeting was scheduled for September 23, 2004. (see attachment 8)18. On December 15, 2004 the City Council approved with 8 votes a BRA proposal for Urban Renewal Plan Extensions. 19. On January 20, 2005 the City Council held a “councilor’s only meeting” to discuss Boston University exposing three of its researchers to Tularemia. (see attachment 9) .20. As a result of this meeting referred to in paragraph 11, Plaintiff Devine complained to the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office. ( See attachment 10)21. After investigation and pursuant to M.G.L. c 39 Section 23A – 24, on or about March 21, 2005, The District Attorney’s office issued a notice to Michael F. Flaherty as President of the City Council explaining that the January 20, 2005 meeting was in violation of the Open Meeting Law. (see attachment 11). 22. The notice to President Flaherty made clear that “any meeting to which all City Councilors are invited should be posted pursuant to the Open Meeting Law.”23. On March 24, 2005 all City councilors were invited to attend a ”Monthly Council Conversations with BRA Director” meeting with the Boston Redevelopment Agency (BRA). (see attachment 8)24. This City Council meeting with the BRA was for the purpose of addressing BRA projects and zoning issues. .25. At least seven City Councilors attended this March 24, 2005 meeting with the BRA referenced in paragraphs 23 and 24. 26. The meeting and the public being barred was reported in the press. (see attachments 12 and 13)27. The topics discussed at the March 24, 2005 meeting referenced above do not meet any of the exceptions listed in c.39 Sec. 23B. 28. There was no notice of the meeting of March 24,2005 filed with the clerk of the City of Boston. 29. There was no public posting of a notice of the meeting of March 24, 2005. . 30. There were no records of the meeting of March 24, 2005 made available to the public. 31. As a result of this meeting, Plaintiff McCrea complained to the Suffolk County District Attorney's office by letter and fax. Two subsequent letters were sent to the District Attorney's office with no reply as of this date. (see attachment 14)32. On Wednesday, March 27, 2005 the scheduled “Monthly Council Conversations with BRA Director” for Thursday March 28, 2005 was cancelled.33. On March 27, 2005 Plaintiff McCrea contacted Ellen Harrower of the BRA, who sent the invitation of the meeting to all the Boston City Councilors, and asked whether the Thursday March 28, 2005 meeting was cancelled and why. She replied “Let me be perfectly clear. I am not answering your questions. My name is Ellen Harrower.” She then referred Plaintiff McCrea to Susan Ellesbury of the BRA, who did not return a phone call.34. On Friday April 29, 2005 Plaintiff McCrea talked on the phone with Ellen Harrower of the BRA who informed him that the meeting was cancelled because the BRA needed to prepare for a 2 p.m. board meeting, but that the May 26, 2005 “Monthly Council Conversations with BRA Director” was still scheduled. (see attachment 8)35. The BRA, the Mayor's office and the City Council have been in the process of rewriting the zoning code. This has been done without a proper public vetting process. (see attachment 15)36. As of this date, no action has been taken by the District Attorney's office to enforce the Open Meeting Law, in relationship to these meetings between the City Council and the BRA. COUNT I37. The plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 36of this Complaint.38. Despite being warned, the Boston City Council continues to flagrantly ignore the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. 39. Since all meetings of a governmental body shall be open to the public, the actions of the Boston City Council are in violation of M.G. L. c. 39 sec. 23B.40. Boston City Government is in the process of amending the zoning code. From a public policy viewpoint, not doing this in an open transparent way is inconsistent with the wording and intent of the Open Meeting Law.41. The Boston City Council voted to extend the Urban Renewal Plans after a series of meetings on that subject that violated the Open Meeting Law. From a public policy viewpoint, not conducting these meetings in an open transparent way is inconsistent with the wording and intent of the Open Meeting Law.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
a. Adjudge and declare that the Boston City Council is in violation of the Open Meeting Law.
b. Issue an appropriate order requiring the Boston City Council to carry out the provisions of the Open Meeting Law at all future meetings.
c. Order that all records of any meetings held in violation of the Open Meeting Law be made public.
d. Order that the Boston City Council not be allowed to go into Executive Session without proper advance notice to the public.
e. Order the Boston City Council to cease and desist violating the Open Meeting Law.
f. Order civil damages against the Boston City Council for the costs incurred in bringing this action.
g. Invalidate any action taken at any meetings at which any provision of the open meeting law has been violated.
h. Invalidate the December 15, 2004 vote by the City Council approvoving the BRA proposal for Urban Renewal Plan extensions.
i. Award such other relief as the Court finds just and proper.
Respectfully SubmittedKevin McCrea218 West Springfield StreetBoston, MA 02118617-267-2453
Dated: May , 2005
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, SS SUPERIOR COURT C.A. No.
)Kevin McCrea, Shirley Kressel, )Kathleen Devine ) Plaintiffs ) )v. ) )Michael F. Flaherty and the )Boston City Council ) ) Defendants ) )
COMPLAINT FOR ORDER REQUIRING THE BOSTON CITY COUNCIL TO COMPLY WITH THE OPEN MEETING LAW
1. This is an action for an order requiring the Boston City Council to carry out the provisions of the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. c.39 sec. 23B. Despite the clear language of c.39 sec. 23B and a determination by the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office, the defendants, Boston City Council and Council President Flaherty continue to conduct meetings in violation of the Open Meeting Law. Based on these actions, Plaintiff’s McCrea, Devine, and Kressel ask the Court to issue an appropriate order requiring the Boston City Council to carry out all provisions of the Open Meeting Law for all future meetings. In addition it is requested the Court take remedial actions for past meetings.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE2. This action is brought under G.L. c. 39 sec. 23B §1.3. Venue is appropriate pursuant to G.L. c. 223, §1and 9.PARTIES4. Plaintiff Kevin McCrea is a registered voter residing in the City of Boston in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.5. Plaintiff Shirley Kressel is a registered voter residing in the City of Boston in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 6. Plaintiff Kathleen Devine is registered voter residing in the City of Boston in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 7. Defendant Boston City Council is a governmental body within the City of Boston governed by M.G.L. c. 39 Section 23B.8. Defendant Michael F. Flaherty is a City Councilor and is the President of the Boston City Council. The President is responsible for convening and overseeing meetings of the Boston City Council. FACTS9. The Boston City Council (hereinafter referred to as “City Council”) regularly holds meetings for the purpose of deciding on or deliberating towards decisions.10. There are 13 members of the Boston City Council. A quorum of the City Council is 7 members. 11. On February 5, 2003 Councilor Felix Arroyo, in response to a BRA effort to extend Boston's Urban Renewal Plans without the required City Council review, filed for a public hearing on the issue. No hearing was scheduled by the City Council President. (see attachment 1)12. On June 3, 2003, an unnoticed meeting of City Council was held in Council President Michael Flaherty’s office to discuss a BRA request for Council approval of Urban Renewal Plan extensions. After this meeting, another meeting, to be followed by a series of meetings, on this topic, were planned. (see attachment 2)13. On June 19, 2003, the first of these unnoticed meetings was held in the City Council Curley Room. Plaintiff Kressel learned of the meeting, requested permission to attend and did attend. She observed that the purpose of the meeting was for the BRA to provide information to the Council that would allay Council objections and encourage Council acceptance of the Urban Renewal Plan extensions.14. On August 14, 2003, the BRA Director, Mark Maloney, hosted a meeting with the City Council to discuss “the future of Boston’s Urban Renewal Program.” (see attachment 3)15. On September 17, 2003, Councilor Flaherty sent an invitation to all Councilors for regular monthly meetings “relative to urban renewal” with the BRA in the BRA Director's conference room. (see attachment 4)16. Councilor Felix Arroyo wrote several letters to the City Council and the BRA expressing concern that these meetings violated the Open Meeting Law. (see attachments 5,6,7)
17. On August 31, 2004 the BRA notified all members of the City Council of the schedule of monthly meetings of city councilors and the BRA. All councilors were invited to attend each meeting. The first meeting was scheduled for September 23, 2004. (see attachment 8)18. On December 15, 2004 the City Council approved with 8 votes a BRA proposal for Urban Renewal Plan Extensions. 19. On January 20, 2005 the City Council held a “councilor’s only meeting” to discuss Boston University exposing three of its researchers to Tularemia. (see attachment 9) .20. As a result of this meeting referred to in paragraph 11, Plaintiff Devine complained to the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office. ( See attachment 10)21. After investigation and pursuant to M.G.L. c 39 Section 23A – 24, on or about March 21, 2005, The District Attorney’s office issued a notice to Michael F. Flaherty as President of the City Council explaining that the January 20, 2005 meeting was in violation of the Open Meeting Law. (see attachment 11). 22. The notice to President Flaherty made clear that “any meeting to which all City Councilors are invited should be posted pursuant to the Open Meeting Law.”23. On March 24, 2005 all City councilors were invited to attend a ”Monthly Council Conversations with BRA Director” meeting with the Boston Redevelopment Agency (BRA). (see attachment 8)24. This City Council meeting with the BRA was for the purpose of addressing BRA projects and zoning issues. .25. At least seven City Councilors attended this March 24, 2005 meeting with the BRA referenced in paragraphs 23 and 24. 26. The meeting and the public being barred was reported in the press. (see attachments 12 and 13)27. The topics discussed at the March 24, 2005 meeting referenced above do not meet any of the exceptions listed in c.39 Sec. 23B. 28. There was no notice of the meeting of March 24,2005 filed with the clerk of the City of Boston. 29. There was no public posting of a notice of the meeting of March 24, 2005. . 30. There were no records of the meeting of March 24, 2005 made available to the public. 31. As a result of this meeting, Plaintiff McCrea complained to the Suffolk County District Attorney's office by letter and fax. Two subsequent letters were sent to the District Attorney's office with no reply as of this date. (see attachment 14)32. On Wednesday, March 27, 2005 the scheduled “Monthly Council Conversations with BRA Director” for Thursday March 28, 2005 was cancelled.33. On March 27, 2005 Plaintiff McCrea contacted Ellen Harrower of the BRA, who sent the invitation of the meeting to all the Boston City Councilors, and asked whether the Thursday March 28, 2005 meeting was cancelled and why. She replied “Let me be perfectly clear. I am not answering your questions. My name is Ellen Harrower.” She then referred Plaintiff McCrea to Susan Ellesbury of the BRA, who did not return a phone call.34. On Friday April 29, 2005 Plaintiff McCrea talked on the phone with Ellen Harrower of the BRA who informed him that the meeting was cancelled because the BRA needed to prepare for a 2 p.m. board meeting, but that the May 26, 2005 “Monthly Council Conversations with BRA Director” was still scheduled. (see attachment 8)35. The BRA, the Mayor's office and the City Council have been in the process of rewriting the zoning code. This has been done without a proper public vetting process. (see attachment 15)36. As of this date, no action has been taken by the District Attorney's office to enforce the Open Meeting Law, in relationship to these meetings between the City Council and the BRA. COUNT I37. The plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 36of this Complaint.38. Despite being warned, the Boston City Council continues to flagrantly ignore the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. 39. Since all meetings of a governmental body shall be open to the public, the actions of the Boston City Council are in violation of M.G. L. c. 39 sec. 23B.40. Boston City Government is in the process of amending the zoning code. From a public policy viewpoint, not doing this in an open transparent way is inconsistent with the wording and intent of the Open Meeting Law.41. The Boston City Council voted to extend the Urban Renewal Plans after a series of meetings on that subject that violated the Open Meeting Law. From a public policy viewpoint, not conducting these meetings in an open transparent way is inconsistent with the wording and intent of the Open Meeting Law.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
a. Adjudge and declare that the Boston City Council is in violation of the Open Meeting Law.
b. Issue an appropriate order requiring the Boston City Council to carry out the provisions of the Open Meeting Law at all future meetings.
c. Order that all records of any meetings held in violation of the Open Meeting Law be made public.
d. Order that the Boston City Council not be allowed to go into Executive Session without proper advance notice to the public.
e. Order the Boston City Council to cease and desist violating the Open Meeting Law.
f. Order civil damages against the Boston City Council for the costs incurred in bringing this action.
g. Invalidate any action taken at any meetings at which any provision of the open meeting law has been violated.
h. Invalidate the December 15, 2004 vote by the City Council approvoving the BRA proposal for Urban Renewal Plan extensions.
i. Award such other relief as the Court finds just and proper.
Respectfully SubmittedKevin McCrea218 West Springfield StreetBoston, MA 02118617-267-2453
Dated: May , 2005
May 7, 2005 Update
It has been another exhausting week. I've been working 8 to 12 hours a day on my construction projects, then going out each night campaigning. In addition Shirley Kressel, Kathleen Devine and I filed suit against the Boston City Council to enforce the Open Meeting Law.
On Monday I went to a meeting in Roxbury about bridging the achievement gap between the black and hispanic students in the BPS with the asian and white students. Felix Arroyo, Chuck Turner, and Thomas Payzant were there. I asked Mr. Payzant how much we spend on busing, and he indicated about 50 million dollars. More about that later on the campaign trail.
Tuesday was Jamaica Plain where Councilor Tobin had to cancel his meeting with me to attend a funeral. At the milky way, with lots of concerned neighbors and a woman from the BRA collecting signatures for the Mayor. She made sure that I knew that she was taking a day off from work to campaign for the Mayor, and that he is very strict about not allowing anybody to campaign from city hall or to misuse their position to advocate for him. She said he will fire them immediately. She didn't say why city hall was a ghost town on Tuesday.
Wednesday gave a speech at the Democracy for America group. I met Sam Yoon and Gibran Rivera for the first time. Gibran and Matt O'Malley were very complementary about my web site ---Thanks! In Mr. Yoon's speech he admitted that sometimes there is "a bit of politics involved" with the BRA but that we "shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater"
I'm not sure how the city council thinks they are going to clean up the BRA when they have given them virtually untouchable power without oversight. To address the problems of housing in this city we need to get a city planning agency that is responsible to the voters.
Thursday was Brighton for the local neighborhood meeting and Jerry McDermott's kickoff party. The two times I've met Jerry he has been incredibly friendly and nice. I appreciate his hospitality. Patricia White came up to me and graciously introduced herself. She is quite pregnant and says she is expecting in July. Best of luck!! I also met Steve Murphy and Michael Flaherty for the first time. Again, very kind. There does seem to be a genuine comraderie amongst the candidates which is encouraging to see. We all care about the city or we wouldn't be running. I look forward to an open honest discussion of the issues and what each candidate PROMISES to do if elected.
thanks,
kevin
On Monday I went to a meeting in Roxbury about bridging the achievement gap between the black and hispanic students in the BPS with the asian and white students. Felix Arroyo, Chuck Turner, and Thomas Payzant were there. I asked Mr. Payzant how much we spend on busing, and he indicated about 50 million dollars. More about that later on the campaign trail.
Tuesday was Jamaica Plain where Councilor Tobin had to cancel his meeting with me to attend a funeral. At the milky way, with lots of concerned neighbors and a woman from the BRA collecting signatures for the Mayor. She made sure that I knew that she was taking a day off from work to campaign for the Mayor, and that he is very strict about not allowing anybody to campaign from city hall or to misuse their position to advocate for him. She said he will fire them immediately. She didn't say why city hall was a ghost town on Tuesday.
Wednesday gave a speech at the Democracy for America group. I met Sam Yoon and Gibran Rivera for the first time. Gibran and Matt O'Malley were very complementary about my web site ---Thanks! In Mr. Yoon's speech he admitted that sometimes there is "a bit of politics involved" with the BRA but that we "shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater"
I'm not sure how the city council thinks they are going to clean up the BRA when they have given them virtually untouchable power without oversight. To address the problems of housing in this city we need to get a city planning agency that is responsible to the voters.
Thursday was Brighton for the local neighborhood meeting and Jerry McDermott's kickoff party. The two times I've met Jerry he has been incredibly friendly and nice. I appreciate his hospitality. Patricia White came up to me and graciously introduced herself. She is quite pregnant and says she is expecting in July. Best of luck!! I also met Steve Murphy and Michael Flaherty for the first time. Again, very kind. There does seem to be a genuine comraderie amongst the candidates which is encouraging to see. We all care about the city or we wouldn't be running. I look forward to an open honest discussion of the issues and what each candidate PROMISES to do if elected.
thanks,
kevin
Conversation with BRA's Richard Shaklik
On Thursday May 5, the BRA's Richard Shaklik who is the BRA deputy director for zoning and who has been hosting the BRA meetings in the neighborhoods about the rewriting of the zoning codes, returned my previous days phone call.
I asked him about my idea to change the zoning code to what the courts ruled was the zoning code, i.e. that there must be a minimum frontage for a property. He stuck to the BRA's position that the way the BRA interprets the zoning code is the correct way, not the way the courts ruled and that they are just putting in specific language to spell that out.
I asked if the BRA could change their stance to be what the public wanted. He replied that they are taking down all comments from the public meetings and input to the BRA from the community. I asked if he would mind taking a vote of the people who come to the public meetings. He indicated that that information would not be pertinent to the BRA. I made sure I understood correctly that the BRA did not care what the majority of people want, and he indicated that that was correct and that he had no intention of taking a poll of the people who show up at the meetings.
Finally, I asked him if the proposal would mean more density in the neighborhoods affected. After some obfuscation he agreed with me that if more lots could be built on with this amendment, that by definition that would mean there could be more density.
Next public meeting is in Roxbury, 6 pm may 12th at 160 warren avenue
I asked him about my idea to change the zoning code to what the courts ruled was the zoning code, i.e. that there must be a minimum frontage for a property. He stuck to the BRA's position that the way the BRA interprets the zoning code is the correct way, not the way the courts ruled and that they are just putting in specific language to spell that out.
I asked if the BRA could change their stance to be what the public wanted. He replied that they are taking down all comments from the public meetings and input to the BRA from the community. I asked if he would mind taking a vote of the people who come to the public meetings. He indicated that that information would not be pertinent to the BRA. I made sure I understood correctly that the BRA did not care what the majority of people want, and he indicated that that was correct and that he had no intention of taking a poll of the people who show up at the meetings.
Finally, I asked him if the proposal would mean more density in the neighborhoods affected. After some obfuscation he agreed with me that if more lots could be built on with this amendment, that by definition that would mean there could be more density.
Next public meeting is in Roxbury, 6 pm may 12th at 160 warren avenue
Saturday, April 30, 2005
April 30, update
Busy, Busy....
Had a wonderful time at our campaign open house last night. Former City Councilor David Scondras came by and had many fine words of advice, and was in deep conversation with the reporters from the South End News. There were south end baseball coaches and commissioners in attendance, Globe staff, and many newcomers. Thanks to all for coming.
Unlike some of my other colleagues in this campaign, I still have a more than fulltime job. So I have spent today catching up on paperwork and campaign issues. Tomorrow I'm teaching Motorcycle Safety Classes in Worcester. One of my students will be my fiance Dr. Clara Lora.
I will be coaching the Giants monday night in their season opener vs. the Expos, after the game I will attend the forum by Superintendent Payzant in Roxbury on closing the achievement gap between the minority students and the white and asian students. Tuesday I will be taking John Tobin up on his offer to meet and campaign with him at the Neighbor to Neighbor meeting in Jamaica Plain. Wednesday I'll be speaking to the democracy for america group at the harriet tubman house in the south end.
More later, enjoy the weekend and thanks for checking in.
Regards,
kevin
Had a wonderful time at our campaign open house last night. Former City Councilor David Scondras came by and had many fine words of advice, and was in deep conversation with the reporters from the South End News. There were south end baseball coaches and commissioners in attendance, Globe staff, and many newcomers. Thanks to all for coming.
Unlike some of my other colleagues in this campaign, I still have a more than fulltime job. So I have spent today catching up on paperwork and campaign issues. Tomorrow I'm teaching Motorcycle Safety Classes in Worcester. One of my students will be my fiance Dr. Clara Lora.
I will be coaching the Giants monday night in their season opener vs. the Expos, after the game I will attend the forum by Superintendent Payzant in Roxbury on closing the achievement gap between the minority students and the white and asian students. Tuesday I will be taking John Tobin up on his offer to meet and campaign with him at the Neighbor to Neighbor meeting in Jamaica Plain. Wednesday I'll be speaking to the democracy for america group at the harriet tubman house in the south end.
More later, enjoy the weekend and thanks for checking in.
Regards,
kevin
Voting date information
September 27, 2005 City Preliminary Election September 7, 2005 (8:00 PM): Last day and hour for Voter Registration for the September 27 City Preliminary Election, mailed items must be postmarked before September 7, 2005. November 8, 2005 City Election October 19, 2005 (8:00 PM): Last day and hour for Voter Registration for the November 8 City Election, mailed registration must be postmarked before October 19, 2005.
Find your local polling place at the link below:http://www.cityofboston.gov/whoami/default.asp
Any problems or questions? The Massachusetts Elections Division can help, click belowhttp://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleidx.htm
Find your local polling place at the link below:http://www.cityofboston.gov/whoami/default.asp
Any problems or questions? The Massachusetts Elections Division can help, click belowhttp://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleidx.htm
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Thoughts from the campaign trail...
Dear Royal Rooters, welcome to the blog. Whether I win or lose, I really feel as if I'm making at least a soupcon of a difference. Today, the BRA cancelled their monthly secret behind closed doors meeting without any explanation at all. When I spoke to the woman at the BRA who is responsible for letting all the councilors know about the meeting she replied in a stern voice:
"let me be perfectly clear. I am not answering your questions. My name is ____ _____" She refused to say anything else. All I did was ask whether the meeting was on or off. Certainly doesn't sound like open, honest government to me.
I officially signed up to be on the ballot today. Registration papers are next tuesday. We can use help getting signatures.
I went to the BRA event in Allston-Brighton tonight. The crowd was 100% against the changing of the zoning code. Not a single person spoke up for it. Susan Tracy and a gentleman from the mayor's office were there but they didn't comment. Councilor McDermott was there, as he said, to listen to the constituents concerns. I spoke about my concerns: why the BRA can't tell how many properties are affected, why a piece of legislation that has only had one problem in 41 years is being revised, especially when it was not a problem, it was just ZBA issuing a permit they should not have, and that the BRA is having secret meetings about zoning which should not be happening in an open democratic society. I handed out copies of the dorchester reporter article about the affair, which was well received. I was invited to the A/B community meeting next Thursday.
I suggested to the BRA that they take into account the citizens who are not for this exemption, and change the zoning code to read that there will be no exemptions to the minimum lot frontage requirement. They obfuscated....
I told Andrea Estes at the Globe today about how mysteriously the policy of the Inspectional Services Department changed between 1998-2001 when the permit for the infamous house was issued. Previously if one went before the ZBA, there would be a 20 day "holding period" before any permit was issued from the time the application was received at ISD. This was the appeal period. Essentially this buffer was put in to keep people from building things at risk. For some reason this policy was changed under the former commissioner Kevin Joyce who was let go after causing taxpayers over $500,000 in legal and other fees when Julie Fothergill refused to fix a contract for him. By the way, under state law the head of ISD is supposed to be a registered engineer which has not been the case in a long time. It has been headed in the past by non construction industry people with political ties. If this 20 day buffer time idea had still been in force, the project never would have received a permit.
I met with councilor Turner today and had a nice but brief meeting. I told him of my idea to have the City bid to build over the mass pike, and create thousands of median income housing, connect the city and have a limited number of high end, and low end housing units. We need to build more housing for the working class!!! Of course, we would need to have competent accountable construction managers which seems to be difficult in this city and state. This is obviously a long term idea to be studied, not one of my pressing issues.
Someone warned me that my opposition may try and portray me as a disgruntled developer who hasn't won BRA contracts. On the contrary, I am a happy developer who made a fair share of money in my dealings with the BRA. But that doesn't mean that I don't think the BRA should be abolished and a voter accountable city planning agency should be established.
Good night,
kevin
"let me be perfectly clear. I am not answering your questions. My name is ____ _____" She refused to say anything else. All I did was ask whether the meeting was on or off. Certainly doesn't sound like open, honest government to me.
I officially signed up to be on the ballot today. Registration papers are next tuesday. We can use help getting signatures.
I went to the BRA event in Allston-Brighton tonight. The crowd was 100% against the changing of the zoning code. Not a single person spoke up for it. Susan Tracy and a gentleman from the mayor's office were there but they didn't comment. Councilor McDermott was there, as he said, to listen to the constituents concerns. I spoke about my concerns: why the BRA can't tell how many properties are affected, why a piece of legislation that has only had one problem in 41 years is being revised, especially when it was not a problem, it was just ZBA issuing a permit they should not have, and that the BRA is having secret meetings about zoning which should not be happening in an open democratic society. I handed out copies of the dorchester reporter article about the affair, which was well received. I was invited to the A/B community meeting next Thursday.
I suggested to the BRA that they take into account the citizens who are not for this exemption, and change the zoning code to read that there will be no exemptions to the minimum lot frontage requirement. They obfuscated....
I told Andrea Estes at the Globe today about how mysteriously the policy of the Inspectional Services Department changed between 1998-2001 when the permit for the infamous house was issued. Previously if one went before the ZBA, there would be a 20 day "holding period" before any permit was issued from the time the application was received at ISD. This was the appeal period. Essentially this buffer was put in to keep people from building things at risk. For some reason this policy was changed under the former commissioner Kevin Joyce who was let go after causing taxpayers over $500,000 in legal and other fees when Julie Fothergill refused to fix a contract for him. By the way, under state law the head of ISD is supposed to be a registered engineer which has not been the case in a long time. It has been headed in the past by non construction industry people with political ties. If this 20 day buffer time idea had still been in force, the project never would have received a permit.
I met with councilor Turner today and had a nice but brief meeting. I told him of my idea to have the City bid to build over the mass pike, and create thousands of median income housing, connect the city and have a limited number of high end, and low end housing units. We need to build more housing for the working class!!! Of course, we would need to have competent accountable construction managers which seems to be difficult in this city and state. This is obviously a long term idea to be studied, not one of my pressing issues.
Someone warned me that my opposition may try and portray me as a disgruntled developer who hasn't won BRA contracts. On the contrary, I am a happy developer who made a fair share of money in my dealings with the BRA. But that doesn't mean that I don't think the BRA should be abolished and a voter accountable city planning agency should be established.
Good night,
kevin
Globe, Dorchester Articles about City Hall, BRA shenanigans, back room deals with the Zoning Code
All Contents © Copyright 2005, Boston Neighborhood News, Inc.
City Prioritized BRAAmendment for Melville Case
April 21, 2005
By Jim O'SullivanNews Editor
As Dorchester activists remain skeptical about proposed amendments to city zoning laws, internal City Hall documents reveal that Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) officials negotiated the terms of the multi-neighborhood change with attorneys working for owners of a controversial Melville Avenue property.
The records also reveal that the Menino Administration considered the political dimensions of the 99 Melville Ave. case, and that BRA officials structuring the amendment took into account how an attorney for the owners of that property could "use" the change.
"There is a lawsuit pending and the Mayor has made clear his commitment to resolving that matter - which can happen only with this zoning amendment," Rebecca Lee, special counsel to the BRA director, wrote in a March 30 e-mail, responding to Rebecca Barnes, the BRA's chief planner, who had suggested delaying the amendment due to concern over "controversial issues in the next few months."
On February 28, Lee asked BRA designers to "fix" the amendment quickly, reasoning that 99 Melville attorney "Marty Healy may be able to use it in the litigation later."
Before Mayor Thomas M. Menino appointed her to the BRA last November as director Mark Maloney's legal adviser, Lee worked in the real estate department of Goodwin Procter, the law firm representing the 99 Melville Ave. owners.
The documents, obtained by the Reporter under the Freedom of the Information Act, pertain to suggested changes in the way the city permits lots for developments. Richard Shaklik, the BRA deputy director for zoning, told the Reporter in March that one amendment would define "lot frontage" and "lot width" as the same measurement, repairing an "oversight" in the code. The other, he said, would add lot frontage to a clause in the code regulating exceptions to minimum lot size. Shaklik, who proposed the amendment in a February 24 memorandum, said the changes would apply only to existing lots which meet pre-existing standards, including "at least three-fourths of the minimum lot size and lot width requirements."
Officials maintain that the alterations amount to minor clerical adjustments.
But BRA and administration officials admit they don't have an estimate of how many lots could be impacted by the amendment, which is marked for enactment in Dorchester, Roxbury, Fenway, Allston-Brighton, and East Boston.
Allston-Brighton Councillor Jerry McDermott has asked that his neighborhood be ruled exempt from the change, and said Tuesday that he has not heard back from the BRA about how many units would be affected there.
In a March 25 e-mail, Lee asked BRA officials for an answer to the same question.
The most recent document obtained by the Reporter is dated March 31.
Amendment's beginning
McDermott said that Allston-Brighton residents "are concerned, and rightfully so, that what seems like a minor technical amendment could have a wide-reaching impact. You would think that before the BRA suggested a large change, that they would know the ramifications of such a change."
Dorchester City Councillor Maureen Feeney has championed the amendment, calling consternation over it "driven for the wrong reason."
Feeney has also championed the cause of the O'Flahertys, the Melville Ave. family who constructed a single-family home beside their two-family, after the city's zoning board of appeals (ZBA) approved BRA-opposed variances in the design plans in 2001. Several neighbors fiercely opposed the building, and three - Peter Ent, John Young, and Yvonne Ruggles, wife of Menino spokesman DeWayne Lehman - filed suit against the appeals board.
Years of legal and behind-the-scenes wrangling ensued, with the O'Flahertys completing construction despite court warnings that 99 Melville would have to be torn down. In January, a state appeals court sided with the plaintiffs and earlier decisions that the ZBA "acted in excess of its authority" in granting the variances and that the home should come down.
Records show that the city almost immediately began reconsidering its zoning code, collaborating with O'Flaherty attorney Martin Healy, the Goodwin Procter lawyer who has edited the "Massachusetts Zoning Manual" since 1989, and advised Big Dig permitters.
Healy repeatedly offered comments and proposed changes to the amendment, and Lee encouraged BRA officials to check their plans with Healy, on February 23 asking BRA land use counsel Donald Wiest to "connect directly with Marty."
Healy did not respond to a voicemail left at his office.
"It's consistent with BRA practices that we provide draft memos," and consult outside parties, said BRA spokeswoman Susan Elsbree, "so that they know what we're contemplating."
Barbara Gruenthal, attorney for the plaintiffs and thus Healy's opponent, said Wednesday she was not consulted, and didn't learn that an amendment was in the works until March 3, a week after Shaklik's memo outlined the plan.
Elsbree said she didn't know how Healy learned of the amendment.
'Mired in other issues'
On March 30, Shaklik sent an e-mail to Maloney and several other BRA officials, including Lee, summarizing a meeting with two other BRA officials and Menino's neighborhood services director Jay Walsh, and expressing skepticism about the amendments' chances of winning popular support. Shaklik acknowledged residents' "feeling that these neighborhoods are being 'over developed' and that the ZBA has been too generous in granting zoning relief," and said amendment opponents "feel that the only reason the amendment is being proposed is to benefit the homeowner in the 99 Melville Avenue case."
Shaklik wrote, "The proposed amendment is defensible from a technical zoning perspective but has obviously become mired in other issues … Consequently, the proposed amendment is likely to become more controversial and receive more press attention as we move forward."
In a reply the next day, Maloney wrote, "I am disappointed that the meeting mentioned below did not include Rebecca Lee. She has been working on this with [city policy and planning chief] Michael Kineavy and the Mayor. I believe the best strategy is to accomplish the technical correction for Dorchester right away and then strategize about doing the rest of the communities that could become involved. Please connect with Rebecca right away so that we can proceed on that basis."
'You don't need this'
On March 22, a hearing before the zoning commission - which establishes code policy, whereas the zoning board interprets it - drew 50 people, many of whom, including city councillors, said they learned of it at the last minute. At Menino's behest, according to the documents, the commission delayed a vote on the amendment until a series of public meetings could be held in the affected neighborhoods.
After councillors and activists ripped the vetting process as too secretive, city officials scheduled a Dorchester meeting on the amendment for 6:30 p.m., Monday, April 25, at the IBEW Hall on Freeport St., and are planning separate discussions for the other neighborhoods.
Since the 99 Melville Ave. case first put neighbors at odds in 2001, it's been politically-laden, with Feeney vocally supportive of the O'Flahertys, and City Councillor Charles Yancey - who lives around the corner and in whose district the property actually sits - staying largely clear of the battle. Susan Tracy, the politically-wired former state representative and Jacqueline O'Flaherty's aunt, has advocated for the O'Flahertys' cause.
Yancey did not respond to messages left at his office.
As recently as last month, the lingering, election year political implications, popped up on the administration's radar screen, when Patrick Lee, a partner in the Dorchester development firm Trinity Financial and the husband of former Menino chief-of-staff Alyce Lee, who left that post in 1995, contacted Kineavy.
On March 8, Patrick Lee e-mailed Kineavy that local opponents of 99 Melville Ave. visited him and his wife the day before. The opponents, Lee warned, "are girding for battle." Lee said they were not seeking the house's demolition, but rather an apology and the reimbursement of $70,000 in legal bills.
Lee continued, "You all don't need this fight, not now and probably, not ever … Michael, seems like there is a solution to this problem that has the Mayor being a savior, rather than pitted against some of the neighbors on Melville Avenue."
Later the same day, Lee wrote to Maloney that he thought "an avoidable political fight is looming" and offered to help broker a compromise.
In a March 11 e-mail to Lee, Kineavy wrote, "[I]t would be great to find some way to bridge the gap here. The e-mail was the first time that I heard that the opposition's ultimate goal wasn't to have the house torn down. That's our starting point too. So maybe there is some room for compromise. Alyce suggested that Mark may have some ideas around the money side of the issue."
But less than two weeks later Lee had grown less sanguine about reaching a solution. In a March 22 e-mail, the day of the zoning commission hearing, he told Kineavy and Maloney, "The conversations I have had with people on both sides of the case don't leave me with the hope that the parties can work this out together. There has been too much personal animosity over the many years. Mark, the conversations didn't even progress to the point where it made sense to put the idea you and I discussed on the table."
Kineavy, through eastern Dorchester liaison Molly Dunford, deferred all questions to the BRA.
Patrick Lee did not immediately respond to a voicemail left at his office.
Scope tough to judge
While the BRA insists that the changes would amount to a correction of an ambiguity in the code, no figures have been offered which estimate how many units meet its terms, leaving questions for McDermott and others.
"To be honest, I really don't understand what the full impact of this is going to be on Dorchester and the other neighborhoods," said Rosanne Foley, an Ashmont Hill activist.
In a February 23 e-mail, Wiest wrote, "Once enacted, our text amendments will have the effect of immediately legalizing any proposed or current project that complies with a minimum lot size exemption provision in every way other than lot frontage," but did not speculate about how many projects would be ruled legal.
Since sending an e-mail to approximately 50 community leaders in southeastern Dorchester soliciting properties that might qualify, Pope's Hill Neighborhood Association Philip J. Carver, a frequent zoning policy critic, said he has received 120 responses, but hasn't confirmed they meet the standards.
Michael Cote, a Fields Corner activist who has studied the zoning code for nearly a decade, said the city's online property records don't allow for easy figuring of which lots would qualify.
"It's extremely complicated to even figure out whether an individual lot meets the requirement, let alone across the entire city," Cote said.
While officials have publicly insisted they conceived the amendment because of issues the Melville Ave. case brought to light, instead of as a means of legalizing the property, Shaklik's March 30 e-mail acknowledged the widespread sentiment to the contrary, one that Cote echoed.
"Everything about this looks to me like the city is going out of its way to change the rules so they can say that they were right all along, and that the people who challenged them [over 99 Melville] were wrong," Cote said.
"It's not because of the case, but because of the case we've seen deficiencies in the code," Elsbree said.
"Not everything is a conspiracy," said Feeney. "Sometimes it's about good government and doing the right thing and making sure that our laws and the language in the laws are appropriate."
Back to Reporter Home Page
BOSTON GLOBE ARTICLE
By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff April 28, 2005
A politically connected Dorchester family is getting help from the highest levels of City Hall to save a newly constructed house that two courts have ordered destroyed because it violates Boston's zoning code.
Though Suffolk Superior Court and the Massachusetts Appeals Court have sided with angry neighbors and ordered removal of the house built by Jackie and Anthony O'Flaherty, officials including Boston Redevelopment Authority director Mark Maloney and Mayor Thomas M. Menino have intervened on the family's behalf.
The BRA asked a high-powered Boston zoning lawyer to represent the family. The lawyer, Martin R. Healy of Goodwin Procter, is chairman of the firm's real estate development and permitting practice and is listed in The Best Lawyers in America 2005-2006, according to his resume. He is working for the family for free.
Menino recently ''made clear his commitment to resolving" the matter, according to a March 30 e-mail by a BRA lawyer, and the BRA is now trying to amend the zoning code so that the house would no longer violate the rules. This week Maloney contacted a lawyer representing the neighbors in an effort to broker a compromise with neighbors.
The O'Flahertys are a longtime Boston family, with several generations living in Dorchester since the 1920s. Jackie O'Flaherty's aunt is Susan Tracy, a popular former state representative who worked for the administration of former mayor Raymond L. Flynn and currently sits on a committee of women supporting Menino's reelection bid. Tracy is friendly with several of Menino's top aides and has been active in the family's efforts to save the house.
Menino and other city officials said they are trying to correct an injustice and not doing anything for the O'Flahertys that they wouldn't do for others.
''This is a working family that made a mistake, and if someone wants them to tear down the house, it's totally wrong," said Menino, adding that he hadn't met the O'Flahertys until recently. ''These are hard-working people who thought they were doing the right thing. They got bad advice, so they turned to government. We're trying to be helpful."
Controversy over the 2,000-square-foot house on Melville Avenue began even before it was built in 2001 because some neighbors didn't want another house built on the lot. The lot didn't meet the zoning code's requirement for 50 feet of frontage on a public street. The O'Flahertys went to the city's Zoning Board of Appeal for permission to build. At the time, the O'Flaherty's were living in a two-family house on the property.
Several neighbors turned out to object, but, they said, weren't allowed to speak. Construction of a new house would result in three structures on the lot, including the two-family house and a barn at the rear. But the total number of buildings was not an issue before the Zoning Board.
Page 2 of 2 -- The Zoning Board issued the variance, and two weeks later the neighbors sued, arguing that squeezing the house onto a lot with such small frontage meant that the new building would block their view and access to light and air. They also argued that the house would increase traffic and congestion in the neighborhood.
A Suffolk Superior Court judge refused to issue an injunction to stop construction, but warned the family that they ''proceeded with the construction at their own peril." The family's lawyer assured the judge that if the family lost the case they would tear down the house.
They built the house, now valued by city assessors at $407,400, and moved in 2002. The following year, Superior Court Judge Janet Sanders ruled against them, ordering the Zoning Board to deny the variance and take ''all action necessary against the O'Flahertys to enforce the provisions of the code, including an order that they remove" the house.
In January, the state Appeals Court upheld Sanders's decision.
''This happened because of the process," said Yvonne Ruggles, one of the neighbors who sued. ''It was our understanding that as abutters we had the right to question the development. But when we went to the Zoning Board they didn't ask for the abutters. The lot was too small."
The battle over the house has galvanized the community, and hundreds of people turned out Monday night to speak for or against the city's proposed solution to the problem: changing the zoning code to circumvent the court decisions by ensuring that the lot complies with zoning rules.
Some residents worried that the amendment, which will make it easier for property owners to build without first going to the Zoning Board of Appeal for special approvals on lots that have smaller frontage, would have broad implications for neighborhoods across the city. They said it could make it easier for builders to squeeze projects onto tiny lots.
Under the proposed change, a property owner could be issued a building permit for a lot without having to go before the Zoning Board of Appeal as long as the frontage on a lot is at least 75 percent of the frontage specified in the zoning code.
Some Boston neighborhoods already have exceptions that allow building on properties that are 75 percent of the square footage spelled out in the zoning code and 75 percent of the width. But lots must still meet frontage requirements. The O'Flahertys' lot is just over 45 feet at the street, less than 5 feet shorter than currently required.
City officials said that they are not looking to change the zoning code simply to benefit the O'Flahertys, but that the family's ordeal has brought to light a problem in the code that needs ''clarifying." The city plans meetings in the affected neighborhoods before moving forward with passage of the zoning change.
Councilor at Large Maura Hennigan, who is running for mayor, said she has never seen the city bureaucracy organize so publicly on behalf of a single family.
''I've never seen such a blatant example of putting a personal relationship ahead of what should be an objective process," said Hennigan, who opposes the zoning code change. ''We can't have a city that sets its laws based on personal interests and friends."
Some Dorchester residents also said there is another dimension to the battle, reflecting tensions between lifelong working-class residents like the O'Flahertys and newcomers trying to curb development in a modest city block. Some testified on behalf of the O'Flahertys, saying that residents need to bridge that divide.
''Neighbors help each other and care about each other," Carolyn Kain, a neighborhood resident, said at Monday night's meeting.
The O'Flahertys say their lives have been made miserable by the controversy and fear a wrecking ball will demolish their home.
''We just wanted to have enough room for our family," said Jackie O'Flaherty. ''Our kids were sharing a bedroom, and we needed more space. It was always our dream to build on the lot.
''This has destroyed my family," she said. ''My 10-year-old daughter is crying over this all the time. It started off they wanted the power in the neighborhoods and it turned into an angry mob that would do anything and everything to hurt us. I can't fathom why they've taken it to the extremes they've taken it."
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.
City Prioritized BRAAmendment for Melville Case
April 21, 2005
By Jim O'SullivanNews Editor
As Dorchester activists remain skeptical about proposed amendments to city zoning laws, internal City Hall documents reveal that Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) officials negotiated the terms of the multi-neighborhood change with attorneys working for owners of a controversial Melville Avenue property.
The records also reveal that the Menino Administration considered the political dimensions of the 99 Melville Ave. case, and that BRA officials structuring the amendment took into account how an attorney for the owners of that property could "use" the change.
"There is a lawsuit pending and the Mayor has made clear his commitment to resolving that matter - which can happen only with this zoning amendment," Rebecca Lee, special counsel to the BRA director, wrote in a March 30 e-mail, responding to Rebecca Barnes, the BRA's chief planner, who had suggested delaying the amendment due to concern over "controversial issues in the next few months."
On February 28, Lee asked BRA designers to "fix" the amendment quickly, reasoning that 99 Melville attorney "Marty Healy may be able to use it in the litigation later."
Before Mayor Thomas M. Menino appointed her to the BRA last November as director Mark Maloney's legal adviser, Lee worked in the real estate department of Goodwin Procter, the law firm representing the 99 Melville Ave. owners.
The documents, obtained by the Reporter under the Freedom of the Information Act, pertain to suggested changes in the way the city permits lots for developments. Richard Shaklik, the BRA deputy director for zoning, told the Reporter in March that one amendment would define "lot frontage" and "lot width" as the same measurement, repairing an "oversight" in the code. The other, he said, would add lot frontage to a clause in the code regulating exceptions to minimum lot size. Shaklik, who proposed the amendment in a February 24 memorandum, said the changes would apply only to existing lots which meet pre-existing standards, including "at least three-fourths of the minimum lot size and lot width requirements."
Officials maintain that the alterations amount to minor clerical adjustments.
But BRA and administration officials admit they don't have an estimate of how many lots could be impacted by the amendment, which is marked for enactment in Dorchester, Roxbury, Fenway, Allston-Brighton, and East Boston.
Allston-Brighton Councillor Jerry McDermott has asked that his neighborhood be ruled exempt from the change, and said Tuesday that he has not heard back from the BRA about how many units would be affected there.
In a March 25 e-mail, Lee asked BRA officials for an answer to the same question.
The most recent document obtained by the Reporter is dated March 31.
Amendment's beginning
McDermott said that Allston-Brighton residents "are concerned, and rightfully so, that what seems like a minor technical amendment could have a wide-reaching impact. You would think that before the BRA suggested a large change, that they would know the ramifications of such a change."
Dorchester City Councillor Maureen Feeney has championed the amendment, calling consternation over it "driven for the wrong reason."
Feeney has also championed the cause of the O'Flahertys, the Melville Ave. family who constructed a single-family home beside their two-family, after the city's zoning board of appeals (ZBA) approved BRA-opposed variances in the design plans in 2001. Several neighbors fiercely opposed the building, and three - Peter Ent, John Young, and Yvonne Ruggles, wife of Menino spokesman DeWayne Lehman - filed suit against the appeals board.
Years of legal and behind-the-scenes wrangling ensued, with the O'Flahertys completing construction despite court warnings that 99 Melville would have to be torn down. In January, a state appeals court sided with the plaintiffs and earlier decisions that the ZBA "acted in excess of its authority" in granting the variances and that the home should come down.
Records show that the city almost immediately began reconsidering its zoning code, collaborating with O'Flaherty attorney Martin Healy, the Goodwin Procter lawyer who has edited the "Massachusetts Zoning Manual" since 1989, and advised Big Dig permitters.
Healy repeatedly offered comments and proposed changes to the amendment, and Lee encouraged BRA officials to check their plans with Healy, on February 23 asking BRA land use counsel Donald Wiest to "connect directly with Marty."
Healy did not respond to a voicemail left at his office.
"It's consistent with BRA practices that we provide draft memos," and consult outside parties, said BRA spokeswoman Susan Elsbree, "so that they know what we're contemplating."
Barbara Gruenthal, attorney for the plaintiffs and thus Healy's opponent, said Wednesday she was not consulted, and didn't learn that an amendment was in the works until March 3, a week after Shaklik's memo outlined the plan.
Elsbree said she didn't know how Healy learned of the amendment.
'Mired in other issues'
On March 30, Shaklik sent an e-mail to Maloney and several other BRA officials, including Lee, summarizing a meeting with two other BRA officials and Menino's neighborhood services director Jay Walsh, and expressing skepticism about the amendments' chances of winning popular support. Shaklik acknowledged residents' "feeling that these neighborhoods are being 'over developed' and that the ZBA has been too generous in granting zoning relief," and said amendment opponents "feel that the only reason the amendment is being proposed is to benefit the homeowner in the 99 Melville Avenue case."
Shaklik wrote, "The proposed amendment is defensible from a technical zoning perspective but has obviously become mired in other issues … Consequently, the proposed amendment is likely to become more controversial and receive more press attention as we move forward."
In a reply the next day, Maloney wrote, "I am disappointed that the meeting mentioned below did not include Rebecca Lee. She has been working on this with [city policy and planning chief] Michael Kineavy and the Mayor. I believe the best strategy is to accomplish the technical correction for Dorchester right away and then strategize about doing the rest of the communities that could become involved. Please connect with Rebecca right away so that we can proceed on that basis."
'You don't need this'
On March 22, a hearing before the zoning commission - which establishes code policy, whereas the zoning board interprets it - drew 50 people, many of whom, including city councillors, said they learned of it at the last minute. At Menino's behest, according to the documents, the commission delayed a vote on the amendment until a series of public meetings could be held in the affected neighborhoods.
After councillors and activists ripped the vetting process as too secretive, city officials scheduled a Dorchester meeting on the amendment for 6:30 p.m., Monday, April 25, at the IBEW Hall on Freeport St., and are planning separate discussions for the other neighborhoods.
Since the 99 Melville Ave. case first put neighbors at odds in 2001, it's been politically-laden, with Feeney vocally supportive of the O'Flahertys, and City Councillor Charles Yancey - who lives around the corner and in whose district the property actually sits - staying largely clear of the battle. Susan Tracy, the politically-wired former state representative and Jacqueline O'Flaherty's aunt, has advocated for the O'Flahertys' cause.
Yancey did not respond to messages left at his office.
As recently as last month, the lingering, election year political implications, popped up on the administration's radar screen, when Patrick Lee, a partner in the Dorchester development firm Trinity Financial and the husband of former Menino chief-of-staff Alyce Lee, who left that post in 1995, contacted Kineavy.
On March 8, Patrick Lee e-mailed Kineavy that local opponents of 99 Melville Ave. visited him and his wife the day before. The opponents, Lee warned, "are girding for battle." Lee said they were not seeking the house's demolition, but rather an apology and the reimbursement of $70,000 in legal bills.
Lee continued, "You all don't need this fight, not now and probably, not ever … Michael, seems like there is a solution to this problem that has the Mayor being a savior, rather than pitted against some of the neighbors on Melville Avenue."
Later the same day, Lee wrote to Maloney that he thought "an avoidable political fight is looming" and offered to help broker a compromise.
In a March 11 e-mail to Lee, Kineavy wrote, "[I]t would be great to find some way to bridge the gap here. The e-mail was the first time that I heard that the opposition's ultimate goal wasn't to have the house torn down. That's our starting point too. So maybe there is some room for compromise. Alyce suggested that Mark may have some ideas around the money side of the issue."
But less than two weeks later Lee had grown less sanguine about reaching a solution. In a March 22 e-mail, the day of the zoning commission hearing, he told Kineavy and Maloney, "The conversations I have had with people on both sides of the case don't leave me with the hope that the parties can work this out together. There has been too much personal animosity over the many years. Mark, the conversations didn't even progress to the point where it made sense to put the idea you and I discussed on the table."
Kineavy, through eastern Dorchester liaison Molly Dunford, deferred all questions to the BRA.
Patrick Lee did not immediately respond to a voicemail left at his office.
Scope tough to judge
While the BRA insists that the changes would amount to a correction of an ambiguity in the code, no figures have been offered which estimate how many units meet its terms, leaving questions for McDermott and others.
"To be honest, I really don't understand what the full impact of this is going to be on Dorchester and the other neighborhoods," said Rosanne Foley, an Ashmont Hill activist.
In a February 23 e-mail, Wiest wrote, "Once enacted, our text amendments will have the effect of immediately legalizing any proposed or current project that complies with a minimum lot size exemption provision in every way other than lot frontage," but did not speculate about how many projects would be ruled legal.
Since sending an e-mail to approximately 50 community leaders in southeastern Dorchester soliciting properties that might qualify, Pope's Hill Neighborhood Association Philip J. Carver, a frequent zoning policy critic, said he has received 120 responses, but hasn't confirmed they meet the standards.
Michael Cote, a Fields Corner activist who has studied the zoning code for nearly a decade, said the city's online property records don't allow for easy figuring of which lots would qualify.
"It's extremely complicated to even figure out whether an individual lot meets the requirement, let alone across the entire city," Cote said.
While officials have publicly insisted they conceived the amendment because of issues the Melville Ave. case brought to light, instead of as a means of legalizing the property, Shaklik's March 30 e-mail acknowledged the widespread sentiment to the contrary, one that Cote echoed.
"Everything about this looks to me like the city is going out of its way to change the rules so they can say that they were right all along, and that the people who challenged them [over 99 Melville] were wrong," Cote said.
"It's not because of the case, but because of the case we've seen deficiencies in the code," Elsbree said.
"Not everything is a conspiracy," said Feeney. "Sometimes it's about good government and doing the right thing and making sure that our laws and the language in the laws are appropriate."
Back to Reporter Home Page
BOSTON GLOBE ARTICLE
By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff April 28, 2005
A politically connected Dorchester family is getting help from the highest levels of City Hall to save a newly constructed house that two courts have ordered destroyed because it violates Boston's zoning code.
Though Suffolk Superior Court and the Massachusetts Appeals Court have sided with angry neighbors and ordered removal of the house built by Jackie and Anthony O'Flaherty, officials including Boston Redevelopment Authority director Mark Maloney and Mayor Thomas M. Menino have intervened on the family's behalf.
The BRA asked a high-powered Boston zoning lawyer to represent the family. The lawyer, Martin R. Healy of Goodwin Procter, is chairman of the firm's real estate development and permitting practice and is listed in The Best Lawyers in America 2005-2006, according to his resume. He is working for the family for free.
Menino recently ''made clear his commitment to resolving" the matter, according to a March 30 e-mail by a BRA lawyer, and the BRA is now trying to amend the zoning code so that the house would no longer violate the rules. This week Maloney contacted a lawyer representing the neighbors in an effort to broker a compromise with neighbors.
The O'Flahertys are a longtime Boston family, with several generations living in Dorchester since the 1920s. Jackie O'Flaherty's aunt is Susan Tracy, a popular former state representative who worked for the administration of former mayor Raymond L. Flynn and currently sits on a committee of women supporting Menino's reelection bid. Tracy is friendly with several of Menino's top aides and has been active in the family's efforts to save the house.
Menino and other city officials said they are trying to correct an injustice and not doing anything for the O'Flahertys that they wouldn't do for others.
''This is a working family that made a mistake, and if someone wants them to tear down the house, it's totally wrong," said Menino, adding that he hadn't met the O'Flahertys until recently. ''These are hard-working people who thought they were doing the right thing. They got bad advice, so they turned to government. We're trying to be helpful."
Controversy over the 2,000-square-foot house on Melville Avenue began even before it was built in 2001 because some neighbors didn't want another house built on the lot. The lot didn't meet the zoning code's requirement for 50 feet of frontage on a public street. The O'Flahertys went to the city's Zoning Board of Appeal for permission to build. At the time, the O'Flaherty's were living in a two-family house on the property.
Several neighbors turned out to object, but, they said, weren't allowed to speak. Construction of a new house would result in three structures on the lot, including the two-family house and a barn at the rear. But the total number of buildings was not an issue before the Zoning Board.
Page 2 of 2 -- The Zoning Board issued the variance, and two weeks later the neighbors sued, arguing that squeezing the house onto a lot with such small frontage meant that the new building would block their view and access to light and air. They also argued that the house would increase traffic and congestion in the neighborhood.
A Suffolk Superior Court judge refused to issue an injunction to stop construction, but warned the family that they ''proceeded with the construction at their own peril." The family's lawyer assured the judge that if the family lost the case they would tear down the house.
They built the house, now valued by city assessors at $407,400, and moved in 2002. The following year, Superior Court Judge Janet Sanders ruled against them, ordering the Zoning Board to deny the variance and take ''all action necessary against the O'Flahertys to enforce the provisions of the code, including an order that they remove" the house.
In January, the state Appeals Court upheld Sanders's decision.
''This happened because of the process," said Yvonne Ruggles, one of the neighbors who sued. ''It was our understanding that as abutters we had the right to question the development. But when we went to the Zoning Board they didn't ask for the abutters. The lot was too small."
The battle over the house has galvanized the community, and hundreds of people turned out Monday night to speak for or against the city's proposed solution to the problem: changing the zoning code to circumvent the court decisions by ensuring that the lot complies with zoning rules.
Some residents worried that the amendment, which will make it easier for property owners to build without first going to the Zoning Board of Appeal for special approvals on lots that have smaller frontage, would have broad implications for neighborhoods across the city. They said it could make it easier for builders to squeeze projects onto tiny lots.
Under the proposed change, a property owner could be issued a building permit for a lot without having to go before the Zoning Board of Appeal as long as the frontage on a lot is at least 75 percent of the frontage specified in the zoning code.
Some Boston neighborhoods already have exceptions that allow building on properties that are 75 percent of the square footage spelled out in the zoning code and 75 percent of the width. But lots must still meet frontage requirements. The O'Flahertys' lot is just over 45 feet at the street, less than 5 feet shorter than currently required.
City officials said that they are not looking to change the zoning code simply to benefit the O'Flahertys, but that the family's ordeal has brought to light a problem in the code that needs ''clarifying." The city plans meetings in the affected neighborhoods before moving forward with passage of the zoning change.
Councilor at Large Maura Hennigan, who is running for mayor, said she has never seen the city bureaucracy organize so publicly on behalf of a single family.
''I've never seen such a blatant example of putting a personal relationship ahead of what should be an objective process," said Hennigan, who opposes the zoning code change. ''We can't have a city that sets its laws based on personal interests and friends."
Some Dorchester residents also said there is another dimension to the battle, reflecting tensions between lifelong working-class residents like the O'Flahertys and newcomers trying to curb development in a modest city block. Some testified on behalf of the O'Flahertys, saying that residents need to bridge that divide.
''Neighbors help each other and care about each other," Carolyn Kain, a neighborhood resident, said at Monday night's meeting.
The O'Flahertys say their lives have been made miserable by the controversy and fear a wrecking ball will demolish their home.
''We just wanted to have enough room for our family," said Jackie O'Flaherty. ''Our kids were sharing a bedroom, and we needed more space. It was always our dream to build on the lot.
''This has destroyed my family," she said. ''My 10-year-old daughter is crying over this all the time. It started off they wanted the power in the neighborhoods and it turned into an angry mob that would do anything and everything to hurt us. I can't fathom why they've taken it to the extremes they've taken it."
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.
City Councilors come up with McCrea's Idea
Dear Madison Park,
Where was my credit??? One of the BIG IDEAS the globe published in the article about me was that I suggested that we should do a pilot program with a number of bars staying open to 4 a.m.Voila!!! Two weeks later a couple of city councilors are putting that idea forward!
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Kevin McCrea
Where was my credit??? One of the BIG IDEAS the globe published in the article about me was that I suggested that we should do a pilot program with a number of bars staying open to 4 a.m.Voila!!! Two weeks later a couple of city councilors are putting that idea forward!
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Kevin McCrea
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Contact information for all candidates
In the spirit on transparency and letting voters comparison shop I am posting all the information my campaign manager could find on the other candidates for City Council. As I've learned in my short time as a candidate, this is exhausting and I tip my hat to all the candidates because they clearly care deeply about the city or they wouldn't take on this endeavor.
City Council At-Large Campaign Websites
John Connollyhttp://www.blueprintforboston.com/
Sam Yoonhttp://www.samyoon.com/
Matt O’Malleyhttp://www.votemattomalley.com/
Michael Flahertyhttp://www.michaelflaherty.com/index.html
Felix Arroyohttp://www.felixarroyo.net/
Stephen Murphyhttp://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/cc.asp?id_name=Murphy
Joe Readyhttp://www.josephready.com/
No information on Patricia White’s campaign
Ed Flynn's phone number 617-269-0776
City Council At-Large Campaign Websites
John Connollyhttp://www.blueprintforboston.com/
Sam Yoonhttp://www.samyoon.com/
Matt O’Malleyhttp://www.votemattomalley.com/
Michael Flahertyhttp://www.michaelflaherty.com/index.html
Felix Arroyohttp://www.felixarroyo.net/
Stephen Murphyhttp://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/cc.asp?id_name=Murphy
Joe Readyhttp://www.josephready.com/
No information on Patricia White’s campaign
Ed Flynn's phone number 617-269-0776
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Kevin's thoughts on Groundwater
Kevin McCrea
218 West Springfield Street
Boston, MA 02118
617-267-2453
617-351-2453 (fax)
South End News
Dear Sirs:
This is in response to the letter to the editor “Where does Kevin McCrea stand on Groundwater” by Carter Jefferson.
When I saw the letter in the South End News the first thing I did was call information and get Mr. Jefferson's phone number. I called him and discussed the issue and where I stood. I referred him to my website www.electkevin.us and invited him to my open houses at 218 West Springfield Street the last friday of each month. I thought we had an excellent, open honest, discussion of the issue.
I explained that as a contractor who has renovated buildings in the Back Bay, South End and Beacon Hill I am very aware of the concern of the residents about this matter, and that I was at the Boston Public Library discussion of the topic as well to become more informed. I disagreed with him that it is the number one issue in the City of Boston, as I think housing and education are the most important issues, which concurs with the recent 48 page report by the non-profit Boston Foundation.
However, groundwater is a big issue that is not being addressed objectively by the city and state government. The reason for this is that local government is too often reactive and not proactive about problems. I call for the elimination of the BRA and the creation of a City Planning Agency that would be accountable to the voters. If we had a planning agency, we could plan ahead and have a blueprint to address development issues, zoning, roads and tranportation projects that affect the groundwater level. I feel that in this issue an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Certainly, I believe that this issue is important and if elected I look forward to working with the Groundwater Trust to keep it on the front burner. It certainly is more vital to the city than City Hall spending precious time and energy looking into whether or not local parking area owners display vibrant capitalism by price gouging suburbanites who drive to Red Sox games!
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Kevin McCrea
218 West Springfield Street
Boston, MA 02118
617-267-2453
617-351-2453 (fax)
South End News
Dear Sirs:
This is in response to the letter to the editor “Where does Kevin McCrea stand on Groundwater” by Carter Jefferson.
When I saw the letter in the South End News the first thing I did was call information and get Mr. Jefferson's phone number. I called him and discussed the issue and where I stood. I referred him to my website www.electkevin.us and invited him to my open houses at 218 West Springfield Street the last friday of each month. I thought we had an excellent, open honest, discussion of the issue.
I explained that as a contractor who has renovated buildings in the Back Bay, South End and Beacon Hill I am very aware of the concern of the residents about this matter, and that I was at the Boston Public Library discussion of the topic as well to become more informed. I disagreed with him that it is the number one issue in the City of Boston, as I think housing and education are the most important issues, which concurs with the recent 48 page report by the non-profit Boston Foundation.
However, groundwater is a big issue that is not being addressed objectively by the city and state government. The reason for this is that local government is too often reactive and not proactive about problems. I call for the elimination of the BRA and the creation of a City Planning Agency that would be accountable to the voters. If we had a planning agency, we could plan ahead and have a blueprint to address development issues, zoning, roads and tranportation projects that affect the groundwater level. I feel that in this issue an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Certainly, I believe that this issue is important and if elected I look forward to working with the Groundwater Trust to keep it on the front burner. It certainly is more vital to the city than City Hall spending precious time and energy looking into whether or not local parking area owners display vibrant capitalism by price gouging suburbanites who drive to Red Sox games!
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Kevin McCrea
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Comunicado de Prensa
COMUNICADO DE PRENSA
Campana para elegir al candidato Kevin McCrea218 W. Springfield Street, Boston, MA 02118617-267-2453 tel.671-351-2453 faxCorreo electrónico: electkevin@gmail.com
El sábado, Abril 2, 2005, el señor Kevin McCrea anuncio su lanzamiento como candidato para Concejal (“At Large”) de la ciudad de Boston, durante una fiesta que tuvo en su casa localizada en 218 W. Springfield St. Esa misma noche, también le anuncio a su familia y sus amigos que se había comprometido con su novia Colombiana, la doctora en psicología Clara Lora-Ospina. Fue una gran noche para el candidato.
Kevin McCrea es un residente de la ciudad de Boston quien esta preocupado por la falta de dirección e honestidad en el gobierno regional. El cree que la ciudad de Boston podría llegar a ser la mejor en el mundo, pero para alcanzar esta meta se necesita tener un gobierno regional que se preocupe de tomar acción concreta a favor de todos los residentes y que se proponga de una manera seria a eliminar los problemas del sistema de educación, la falta de vivienda de precio medio y acceso equitativo a las instituciones gubernamentales para todos los residentes.
El candidato Kevin McCrea se distingue de los otros candidatos porque el no es un político. El tiene grados en filosofía y física y es dueño de una compañía de construcción, Wabash Construction, basada en Boston. Además, McCrea ha sido corredor profesional de motos y ahora enseña cursos de conduzca de motos para el estado de Massachussets. Sus tres cuestiones grandes como concejal de la ciudad serán: educación, vivienda y igualdad de acceso al gobierno; y según el, las tres son conectadas, así como todos estamos conectados como ciudadanos de la gran ciudad de Boston. McCrea piensa que si uno no recibe la educación apropiada entonces uno no aprende las habilidades de pensamiento críticas que se necesitan para conseguir un buen trabajo, ni el conocimiento de cómo exigir buen gobierno. Además, si la gente está luchando para pagar la vivienda y otras cosas fundamentales, no tendrán el tiempo de pasar la enseñanza a sus niños, obrar recíprocamente y apoyar sus escuelas, ni menos tener tiempo para asegurar que su gobierno sea justo y responsable.
El candidato Kevin McCrea dice que mira adelante hacia una discusión abierta sobre éstos temas porque “Cuando le niegan al pueblo el acceso al gobierno, él no puede utilizar ‘su’ gobierno para ayudar a la persona común,” y el promete “trabajar duro para cambiar este ciclo vicioso.”
Toda la información sobre el candidato y sus ideas se puede encontrar fácilmente en su página Web: www.electkevin.us
Campana para elegir al candidato Kevin McCrea218 W. Springfield Street, Boston, MA 02118617-267-2453 tel.671-351-2453 faxCorreo electrónico: electkevin@gmail.com
El sábado, Abril 2, 2005, el señor Kevin McCrea anuncio su lanzamiento como candidato para Concejal (“At Large”) de la ciudad de Boston, durante una fiesta que tuvo en su casa localizada en 218 W. Springfield St. Esa misma noche, también le anuncio a su familia y sus amigos que se había comprometido con su novia Colombiana, la doctora en psicología Clara Lora-Ospina. Fue una gran noche para el candidato.
Kevin McCrea es un residente de la ciudad de Boston quien esta preocupado por la falta de dirección e honestidad en el gobierno regional. El cree que la ciudad de Boston podría llegar a ser la mejor en el mundo, pero para alcanzar esta meta se necesita tener un gobierno regional que se preocupe de tomar acción concreta a favor de todos los residentes y que se proponga de una manera seria a eliminar los problemas del sistema de educación, la falta de vivienda de precio medio y acceso equitativo a las instituciones gubernamentales para todos los residentes.
El candidato Kevin McCrea se distingue de los otros candidatos porque el no es un político. El tiene grados en filosofía y física y es dueño de una compañía de construcción, Wabash Construction, basada en Boston. Además, McCrea ha sido corredor profesional de motos y ahora enseña cursos de conduzca de motos para el estado de Massachussets. Sus tres cuestiones grandes como concejal de la ciudad serán: educación, vivienda y igualdad de acceso al gobierno; y según el, las tres son conectadas, así como todos estamos conectados como ciudadanos de la gran ciudad de Boston. McCrea piensa que si uno no recibe la educación apropiada entonces uno no aprende las habilidades de pensamiento críticas que se necesitan para conseguir un buen trabajo, ni el conocimiento de cómo exigir buen gobierno. Además, si la gente está luchando para pagar la vivienda y otras cosas fundamentales, no tendrán el tiempo de pasar la enseñanza a sus niños, obrar recíprocamente y apoyar sus escuelas, ni menos tener tiempo para asegurar que su gobierno sea justo y responsable.
El candidato Kevin McCrea dice que mira adelante hacia una discusión abierta sobre éstos temas porque “Cuando le niegan al pueblo el acceso al gobierno, él no puede utilizar ‘su’ gobierno para ayudar a la persona común,” y el promete “trabajar duro para cambiar este ciclo vicioso.”
Toda la información sobre el candidato y sus ideas se puede encontrar fácilmente en su página Web: www.electkevin.us
Saturday, April 23, 2005
McCrea Gets Sox to Donate Tickets!
Candidate for Boston City Council At Large Kevin McCrea 218 West Springfield Street Boston, MA 02118 617-267-2453 617-351-2453 (fax)
For Immediate Release:
City Council Candidate Kevin McCrea Convinces Red Sox To Donate Tickets to Youth Baseball
In a lattice of coincidence, Kevin McCrea was able to make lemonade out of lemons by being in the middle of an unfortunate situation. It turns out that Kevin is the holder of the Boston Red Sox Season Ticket for the right field Front Row ticket Section 4, Box 86 Row A1. That happens to be the seat between the fan who had contact with New York Yankee Gary Sheffield, and the fan whose beer ended up on Sheffield.
Kevin has also been the coach of the 6 to 10 year old French Cleaners Giants in the South End Youth Baseball League for the last three years. The night of the incident he sold his ticket for $20 because he was attending a campaign event in Charlestown. He didn't find out about the event until the next day.
In the past week McCrea has had conversations with Boston Red Sox CEO Larry Lucchino and his assistant Adam Grossman. McCrea suggested turning this negative incident into something positive by donating some of the rescinded tickets to area youth baseball, and in particular the South End Youth Baseball league which is free to any kid who would like to play. Charitably the Boston Red Sox have taken McCrea up on his suggestion and are going to donate some of the tickets to South End Baseball. Larry Lucchino was on local Sports Talk Radio Station WEEI this week to announce how the Red Sox are giving back to the local community by donating these tickets.
McCrea is a huge baseball fan who attended almost all of the homegames last season and traveled to the Bronx to see the Sox vanquish the Yankees in Game 7 last year, and attended all 4 World Series Games, visiting his brother who lives in St. Louis for the baseball finals.He joked about the incident “In retrospect it is probably a good thing I wasn't at the game that night, although if Boston residents saw me yelling at the Yankees I might be a shoo-in for the election!” On a more serious note he said “My hat is off to the Red Sox for making this gift to the community. I took two eight year olds from my team: Iouless Rivera, and his cousin Victor Velasquez to their first game last Sunday. It is such a thrill and joy to get these kids to the park to see their heroes, when they might not otherwise get the chance.”
For Immediate Release:
City Council Candidate Kevin McCrea Convinces Red Sox To Donate Tickets to Youth Baseball
In a lattice of coincidence, Kevin McCrea was able to make lemonade out of lemons by being in the middle of an unfortunate situation. It turns out that Kevin is the holder of the Boston Red Sox Season Ticket for the right field Front Row ticket Section 4, Box 86 Row A1. That happens to be the seat between the fan who had contact with New York Yankee Gary Sheffield, and the fan whose beer ended up on Sheffield.
Kevin has also been the coach of the 6 to 10 year old French Cleaners Giants in the South End Youth Baseball League for the last three years. The night of the incident he sold his ticket for $20 because he was attending a campaign event in Charlestown. He didn't find out about the event until the next day.
In the past week McCrea has had conversations with Boston Red Sox CEO Larry Lucchino and his assistant Adam Grossman. McCrea suggested turning this negative incident into something positive by donating some of the rescinded tickets to area youth baseball, and in particular the South End Youth Baseball league which is free to any kid who would like to play. Charitably the Boston Red Sox have taken McCrea up on his suggestion and are going to donate some of the tickets to South End Baseball. Larry Lucchino was on local Sports Talk Radio Station WEEI this week to announce how the Red Sox are giving back to the local community by donating these tickets.
McCrea is a huge baseball fan who attended almost all of the homegames last season and traveled to the Bronx to see the Sox vanquish the Yankees in Game 7 last year, and attended all 4 World Series Games, visiting his brother who lives in St. Louis for the baseball finals.He joked about the incident “In retrospect it is probably a good thing I wasn't at the game that night, although if Boston residents saw me yelling at the Yankees I might be a shoo-in for the election!” On a more serious note he said “My hat is off to the Red Sox for making this gift to the community. I took two eight year olds from my team: Iouless Rivera, and his cousin Victor Velasquez to their first game last Sunday. It is such a thrill and joy to get these kids to the park to see their heroes, when they might not otherwise get the chance.”
Thursday, April 21, 2005
April 20, 2005 Update
It has been quite a whirlwind the past couple of weeks. We have received some great press from the South End News, and the Boston Globe. I've been to events in West Roxbury, Roxbury, Charlestown, South End, Dorchester, and the Back Bay.
I'd like to thank Dan Settana at the Ward 20 meeting in West Roxbury for giving me the opportunity to speak to his group off the cuff. I'd also like to thank Maura Hennigan and her office and Mike Ross and his office for their time and advice on how to get out and campaign. I owe John Tobin a return phone call to set up a time and go campaigning with him, which he generously suggested we do in his comments to the Boston Globe about my candidacy.
I wrote a letter to the editor of the south end news about the groundwater issue in Boston, when someone wrote in asking my position on it. In short, I believe the issue goes back to the fact that we need a city planning agency to proactively address this and other issues.
I had a great time on Joe Heisler's TV show last Tuesday. I'd like to thank him personally for his time and interest in my open and honest campaign. He was altruistic enough to share a beer after the show and offer his advice.
I was advised by a few people before I went on the show that I should have friends and supporters be ready to call in questions. But that is the type of thing that I am running against. That is the same type of slippery slope as the reporter planted in the White House press corps. I got two great phone calls, a gentleman from Eastie who told me to stay positive, and actually be honest about what I'm going to do. I'd like to personally thank Joe from Dorchester, whomever he is, who called in and said something to the effect of "I don't know what kind of chance this guy has but he is the most honest politician I've seen and he has my vote!". These kind of comments are really inspiring me, I really appreciate it.
Hey, Joe--come to my open house at 218 west springfield street in the south end around 7 pm on april 29! I'd love to meet you.
Joe Heisler knows that guests have canned callers calling in. I think he rolled his eyes when I asked about the benign questions coming into the candidate that was on before me.
Some people have asked me about my past, now that the Globe has portrayed me as an "affable playboy" who likes to enjoy life to its fullest. Well, in the spirit of honesty and transparency and in no particular order.....yes, I have been arrested, no I have not been convicted of anything, yes, I shared one marijuana cigarette with a friend in high school, and I did try and inhale but I'm not sure I did it right, and I've never tried drugs again, although I do enjoy a good pint; I probably have exceeded the speed limit on occasion, a couple years ago I got a ticket for going 30 mph (in a 15mph zone) through the fast lane toll on the turnpike, I have sued people and been sued, most proud of taking on Keyspan (Pro Se) when they damaged my front yard. They offered $1200, after holding a number of depositions and discovery myself I found out that Keyspan had hired a subcontractor, who hired a subcontractor, who hired undocumented workers to dig up the streets. They settled for around $18,000. Don't be afraid to ask questions and challenge the status quo, big business and big government.
One good thing about being a contractor is that it prepares you a bit for politics. There is no way you can please all the people, and some people are always going to dislike you no matter how much you try. The key, I think, is to try and do your best, be honest with yourself and be able to sleep everynight because you gave it your best.
In my 30 days as a politician, I have a newfound respect and admiration for anyone who would run for office. I'd like to salute the other 9 candidates and I look forward to a lively and robust discussion of the issues. I'm open to debates and hope that we get a good chance to talk about the real issues with the press and the public.
Tonight I just got back from a heartfelt Ward 5 meeting. They have lost 3 of their longtime beloved members recently. There were a number of good stories, but I was most struck by David Scondras reminding us to let the people in your life now know how much you care for them, don't wait until they are dead. Also, he made the very important point that we need to have FUN in life!!! (where have i heard that before!) He was generous enough to offer his time to talk, and hopefully to come (and maybe speak, please!!!) to one of our open houses.
That is all for now, please contribute if you can, get a sign or a bumper sticker next week when they come in, and come to the open house on April 29th at the BIG house,
Go democracy!!!
kevin
I'd like to thank Dan Settana at the Ward 20 meeting in West Roxbury for giving me the opportunity to speak to his group off the cuff. I'd also like to thank Maura Hennigan and her office and Mike Ross and his office for their time and advice on how to get out and campaign. I owe John Tobin a return phone call to set up a time and go campaigning with him, which he generously suggested we do in his comments to the Boston Globe about my candidacy.
I wrote a letter to the editor of the south end news about the groundwater issue in Boston, when someone wrote in asking my position on it. In short, I believe the issue goes back to the fact that we need a city planning agency to proactively address this and other issues.
I had a great time on Joe Heisler's TV show last Tuesday. I'd like to thank him personally for his time and interest in my open and honest campaign. He was altruistic enough to share a beer after the show and offer his advice.
I was advised by a few people before I went on the show that I should have friends and supporters be ready to call in questions. But that is the type of thing that I am running against. That is the same type of slippery slope as the reporter planted in the White House press corps. I got two great phone calls, a gentleman from Eastie who told me to stay positive, and actually be honest about what I'm going to do. I'd like to personally thank Joe from Dorchester, whomever he is, who called in and said something to the effect of "I don't know what kind of chance this guy has but he is the most honest politician I've seen and he has my vote!". These kind of comments are really inspiring me, I really appreciate it.
Hey, Joe--come to my open house at 218 west springfield street in the south end around 7 pm on april 29! I'd love to meet you.
Joe Heisler knows that guests have canned callers calling in. I think he rolled his eyes when I asked about the benign questions coming into the candidate that was on before me.
Some people have asked me about my past, now that the Globe has portrayed me as an "affable playboy" who likes to enjoy life to its fullest. Well, in the spirit of honesty and transparency and in no particular order.....yes, I have been arrested, no I have not been convicted of anything, yes, I shared one marijuana cigarette with a friend in high school, and I did try and inhale but I'm not sure I did it right, and I've never tried drugs again, although I do enjoy a good pint; I probably have exceeded the speed limit on occasion, a couple years ago I got a ticket for going 30 mph (in a 15mph zone) through the fast lane toll on the turnpike, I have sued people and been sued, most proud of taking on Keyspan (Pro Se) when they damaged my front yard. They offered $1200, after holding a number of depositions and discovery myself I found out that Keyspan had hired a subcontractor, who hired a subcontractor, who hired undocumented workers to dig up the streets. They settled for around $18,000. Don't be afraid to ask questions and challenge the status quo, big business and big government.
One good thing about being a contractor is that it prepares you a bit for politics. There is no way you can please all the people, and some people are always going to dislike you no matter how much you try. The key, I think, is to try and do your best, be honest with yourself and be able to sleep everynight because you gave it your best.
In my 30 days as a politician, I have a newfound respect and admiration for anyone who would run for office. I'd like to salute the other 9 candidates and I look forward to a lively and robust discussion of the issues. I'm open to debates and hope that we get a good chance to talk about the real issues with the press and the public.
Tonight I just got back from a heartfelt Ward 5 meeting. They have lost 3 of their longtime beloved members recently. There were a number of good stories, but I was most struck by David Scondras reminding us to let the people in your life now know how much you care for them, don't wait until they are dead. Also, he made the very important point that we need to have FUN in life!!! (where have i heard that before!) He was generous enough to offer his time to talk, and hopefully to come (and maybe speak, please!!!) to one of our open houses.
That is all for now, please contribute if you can, get a sign or a bumper sticker next week when they come in, and come to the open house on April 29th at the BIG house,
Go democracy!!!
kevin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
