The Jamaica Plain Gazette reports it could take 18 months for the Massachusetts Appeals Court to consider and rule on the JP Neighborhood Council's request to be deemed a city agency, which would then let it sue to stop the Home for Little Wanderers project. A Superior Court judge ruled earlier this year the group is not a government agency and so has no grounds to sue to overturn the project's zoning approval, since none of its members actually live next to it.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Great job JPNDC
By anon
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 2:08pm
The first step is making housing more affordable is to stop anyone from building new places to live.
It's almost like Ben Day and his sidekicks have no idea of how supply and demand works.
Let's hope
By Nate
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 2:16pm
Let's hope the current JPNC (not JPNDC - two different orgs) is voted out in their October elections in favor of people who don't waste everyone's time with frivolous lawsuits.
Probably unlikely considering you can't even get people to vote for real public offices.
I was thinking the same thing.
By Sally
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 2:24pm
The fact that this tiny handful of people continues to use this group to push their own myopic agenda while claiming to "represent the neighborhood" is infuriating. If they get voted out, what happens to the lawsuit?
From the same people who brought you "Whose Foods"
By JP Regressive
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 3:05pm
What were you expecting? These clowns are the same idiots protesting Whole Foods several years ago.
And the JPNDC might as well be the same as the JPNC as there is a good deal of overlap in their respective agendas, not to mention, within their ranks.
Having lived in JP for the last five years I can definitively tell you that the JPNC is completely out of touch with the vast majority of JP'ers.
The hipster do-nothings getting their flop house rents from their rich parents in Wellesley agree with the agenda, not too many others.
Memo to mayoral candidates:
By anonnie
Sat, 08/31/2013 - 10:26am
Memo to mayoral candidates:
I'll vote for whomever is first to promise that they'll abolish these ridiculous councils.
Unless you can convince me that they have some redeeming social value. Otherwise I'll stick with my opinion that they're just civic pornography.
My unified theory of NIMBYism
By Arborway
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 2:30pm
It boils down to: "OK, I got mine. Now, nothing around me can ever change" plus a dash of "Don't even think of building anything without letting me dictate some changes for the sake of having changes made. I want that validation."
I don't think anybody actually believes knocking one or two stories off a design will make things any better, or that leaving them would make things worse.
But forcing changes makes the people asking for them feel special and that their voices matter.
Hearing terms like "Out of character", "Traffic concerns" and "Shadows" applied to developments in the middle of a bustling city are usually short for "I want things to stay exactly as I found them. Forever."
I encourage you to take a
By TheVanJones
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 2:36pm
I encourage you to take a trip down to South Boston if you enjoy a good show.
With that logic
By nightmoves
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 3:07pm
Might as well develop the Common, the Arboretum, and Franklin Park, too.
Almost
By anon
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 3:16pm
Except for the part where there's an existing unused building which someone wants to spend money on to turn into housing where the Common, Arboretum and Franklin Park are parks?
Well
By nightmoves
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 3:33pm
They don't have stay parks forever, unless you're a NIMBY that doesn't want anything to change. Imagine all that new housing and development right in the center of Boston.
OMG
By anon
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 3:51pm
What if the Pond gets covered in.... houseboats! Oh the humanity.
This particular line of argument
By Sally
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 3:53pm
(not to mention the sarcasm and hyperbole) is not working for you, OK? Most of us are intelligent to know the difference between a park and the kind of neighborhood development we're talking about here.
Yes
By nightmoves
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 4:15pm
You are soooo intelligent. You push your "myopic agenda" just like the JPNC.
There are choices besides
By anon
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 4:16pm
There are choices besides "change nothing" and "build buildings on the Common".
That's a straw man argument
By Arborway
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 3:35pm
And you know it. So don't even go there.
ha
By nightmoves
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 4:05pm
okay girlfriend. it's not a straw man, it's using your own words against you.
"I want things to stay exactly as I found them. Forever."
Private property and public property
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 4:07pm
If you don't know the difference, I'm not sure anybody here will be able to help you over your bizarre affliction.
ha
By nightmoves
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 4:17pm
takes one to know one, ya old bag.
You're just making a fool out of yourself
By Arborway
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 5:13pm
And proving that shrill, childish nonsense is all some people have to offer when their arguments have been taken apart in front of them.
You're so intelligent
By nightmoves
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 5:37pm
and predictably overly sensitive and offended that anyone has the nerve to critique your original rant. You really should just come over and beat me up. Bottom of the sugar bowl, anytime. But I need to eat soon.
low blood sugar
By Sally
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 6:06pm
just might explain your cranky mood and the fact that nothing you write makes any sense to anyone. Go have a cookie.
listen lady
By nightmoves
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 6:30pm
you don't run shit around here so stop acting like it.
OK, enough
By adamg
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 6:33pm
If that's the level of your argument, please knock it off.
as expected
By nightmoves
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 6:52pm
from the self-dubbed "intelligent people." talk is cheap.
Hokay
By adamg
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 7:02pm
So try another forum, then. But no more insults.
my unified theory of keeping rents high
By anon
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 3:38pm
What this gets down to: there's a ton of people in JP who moved here in the 80's/90's, bought really cheap, have long since paid off their mortgages on their first properties, and are now living off the rent they're collecting now from 20-30 somethings, to the tune of about $1800-1900/mo for a 2BR...about $500-600 more per month than it was 6 years ago. That's more than 5% a year, folks.
Meanwhile, many of them haven't done much more than repaint occasionally and take care of basic, necessary repairs. Why bother? Everyone's desperate for their apartments!
So: developer comes in, proposes a big block of apartments. New construction, energy-efficient/not heated with oil, etc. The building is large enough to represent a decent jump in the market, increasing supply.
Well, the one thing you DON'T do is threaten the cash stream of people who don't have jobs (except for sitting on some boards of local community orgs) and can show up to random meetings, needing only to cancel their yoga class or find a neighbor to pick up their mid-day CSA farm share.
They'll show up to a meeting, but heaven forbid they have to do some improvements to their property, because they've already budgeted for their yoga retreat, that trip to the galapagos, a new kitchen for their pondside house, and they're thinking of trading in the Prius for a hybrid Lexus. It's either that or cut back on the trips to Ten Tables and Vee Vee.
JP's demographic is very heavily skewed in two directions: young 20-30 year olds and 40-60 year old entitled grumpy assholes who see the prior group as nothing more than walking ATMs who are a necessary evil.
Oh please.
By Sally
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 6:21pm
Falling into neither of those groups allow me to say honestly--give me a break. I'm guessing you fall in the second group since you seem to feel entitled to cheap rent in a hep neighborhood. Those older "grumpy assholes" you're referring to will still be here--yeah, driving their Priuses and supporting businesses like Ten Tables and Centre Street Cafe and VeeVee and Doyle's and oh, you know--maybe actually raising families and growing old here when you've long since said goodbye to your bandmates, removed your piercings, bought a bike with gears and moved to the suburbs. Back when they bought their places (with the intention of becoming evil landlords--bwaahaahaa!--) JP was cheap for a reason. Lots more crime, lots more drugs, fewer services and cool places to eat and drink. Feel free to sink your life savings into a three-decker in a sketchy neighborhood and see what happens and you might change your tune--right now you just sound like a brat.
More
By anon
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 7:57pm
Well said, Sally. People were poor and buying houses in J. P. for $1,000, big old Victorians for $5,000. Then, the owners had to fix the leaky pipes and patch the window and roof leaks. The youngsters who hate them for still living here ought to buy themselves a place in a poor neighborhood and see what happens.
The worst part is that
By roadman
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 7:53pm
under current environmental review laws and procedures, the NIMBYs are presumed to be right unless the project proponent can disprove their claims, however outlandish they may be, beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, guilty until proven innocent.
It's also one of the principal reasons why doing anything around here takes forever and ends up costing way too much (i.e. Green Line Extension).
Not sure it's quite that easy
By Grouper
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 10:18pm
It depends upon what type of housing is being created. In Boston, these days, it's either housing subsidized by the state on underused or vacant lots for poor folk...or it's expensive units for rich folk that is out of step with the surrounding neighborhood. Name one development such as the redevelopment of THFLW that hasn't lead to a hike it rents? YOU CAN'T. They don't exist.
The richest people from all over the world are descending upon a few cities in the U.S. - Boston, NYC, San Fran. and a couple other places. I am not sure if building extra housing units in Boston will make much of a difference, without destroying the entire character of the city. People might just move here more and more and more. Universities expand, hospitals expand, finance expands and eventually, you've got people in the projects working low-wage service gigs, and you've got uber-educated folks making serious money.
Since this has been the pattern for the past 20 years or so - why shouldn't folks in J.P. or Southie be fighting any type of new development? It ain't doing shit for them, that's for sure.
I live on South Huntington,
By Seth
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 3:39pm
I live on South Huntington, and would love to see as much development as possible. More good homes helps my neighborhood do better.
I wish there were a way that a group like the JPNC would have to get a certain critical mass or electoral affirmation before they even got a seat at any table at all...
Adam
By anon²
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 4:18pm
Shouldn't this be "Continues to try to?"
Or am I reading it wrong. Seems the developer is good to go because the JP Neighborhood Council's has no standing; and it's they who will be waiting 18 months.
Or did some idiot judge stop the developer for no good reason why JPNC tries to legitimize itself.
Developer should just get it finishing asap.
I think
By nightmoves
Fri, 08/30/2013 - 4:33pm
There is an underlying zoning issue that was highlighted by the JPA in connection with the VA Hospital area zoning restrictions and the validity of the variance.
New Housing?
By Daan
Sun, 09/01/2013 - 1:54pm
I am a newcomer to JP and am in the 40 -60 age group. So the question for me is whether additional housing is good and what would I like to see happen to the former Home for Little Wanderers.
I think more housing is good but I believe that the issue of extremely complicated and there is a lot of anger and invective and not much genuine concerns about what drives and moves housing in Boston.
I also hope that the building of the Home for Little Wanderers is not razed. I believe that Boston actually has given short shrift to its architectural history. There are singular jewels such as Back Bay as a whole. But there were plenty of grand buildings that now only remain in photographs. The former Jordan Marsh and its boring tedious (embarrassment to the architectural profession) box of a building is a good example. Even City Hall - no slouch as an example of ugliness - at least is interesting, in its ugly, brutish and Brutal way.
But I think that Boston gives short shrift to its history. Boston is one of the oldest cities in the nation, the richness of its history is second to none. It has sites and places where there are remnants of its history. But they all have a theme park feel. My apologies for going off topic but I wish that Boston had a museum celebrating its history. An institution that celebrated its many centuries of urban development, its incredible parks (Frederick Olmstead gave Boston one of the finest jewels in the nation), its immigration history, even its criminal history. Between The Great Brink's Robbery, Boston's mafia connections, the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti (including the bigotry that led to their executions), the Boston Strangler, the Gardner, Whitey Bulger, there is an embarrassment of riches where Boston's history with crime is concerned.
And let's not forget The Great Elm of Boston Common where Mary Dyer was executed for religious belief. These are not pretty stories but they are some of the best of human drama. It's sad that many - certainly not all - Bostonians have become lacy whimps who want to pretend that the city's history is summed up with tossing tea into the harbor. We've sacrificed the meat of human drama for the sweet fluff of Disneyfied cartoonish grade school history graphic novels.
Add comment