Governor proposes easement on part of State House lawn so developer of luxury condos next door can add maid's rooms

Giving up public land to benefit only the very rich. Baker is a republican all right.

For all of you that will whine about the legacy of noted smuggler John Hancock's site, big deal. His heirs didn't even think twice about selling it to the Commonwealth in the past.

WHAT? The nieces and nephews of John & Dorothy Hancock (they outlived their children) held onto it as long as possible, especially considering that many of them ended up impoverished themselves.

Both of Hancock's children died in childhood. Hancock died in 1793 without a will, which lead to his estate being diminished and dispersed amongst nieces and nephews. Despite the fact that many of these relatives and their descendants had little means, the family held onto the mansion for 70 years.

Although Dorothy Hancock had no legal claim to the house, the heirs allowed her to return after the death of her second husband. She lived rent free for 10 years, until 1820, when she moved in with members of her own family as her health declined in her old age.

After that, Hancock family members owned the house until 1863. When the last nephew who had the resources to keep it up and actually live in the house, also named John Hancock, died in 1859, the remaining heirs struggled to find a buyer who would keep it standing. The cost of maintaining a large house, almost 130 years old and suffering from age itself,was well beyond the means of the family.

After nephew John died, the remaining heirs offered the mansion to the commonwealth of Massachusetts for $100,000, which was $25,000 below the value of the land alone. They offered it at this low price because while they could not afford to donate it, they recognized the importance of the house and wanted it to remain standing. Given its location relative to the new state house, they made an argument to legislators that it could be used as the governor's mansion. Initially, the Governor and the legislature were on board, but the arrangement was reneged on when getting all the titles in place dragged on-- various heirs had died, either without wills or without addressing partial ownership in the mansion, and getting ownership to revert to the original surviving heirs or their direct descendants took two years.

With Massachusetts no longer willing to pay for it, the family approached possible patrons who would purchase it and maintain it as a museum. They had no luck in New England, and ended up writing potential philanthropic buyers as far as New Jersey and Delaware. They even thought of reaching out to Washington's descendants, but in light of the Civil War divide between Massachusetts and Virginia, decided not to.

The efforts didn't work, and in 1863 the family sold the land only to developers. Charles Hancock arranged to donate the house itself to the city, expecting it to be moved to a permanent, less valuable location, as Beacon Hill was being gentrified. (Stereoviews of the mansion's inside were taken in 1863 to document what items were being given to the city, and assessment notes made by a city commissioner--these may still be at the BPL).

Ultimately, the city decided against the wholesale move, opting to keep architectural mementos of the house and to auction the house and its furnishings piecemeal. The benefactor of this auction was primarily the city, not the family.

On the plus side, this debacle was part of what inspired the Bostonian Society to form 15 years later, to protect the Old State house.

... the answer is "yes". Reading the article did not cause me to feel less bothered by this deal.

/tips cap