City Councilor Tim McCarthy, a Readville native, announced today he opposes a developer's plans for a 492-unit residential development along Sprague Street just south of the Readville train station.
In a statement posted on his Facebook page, McCarthy - who also represents the rest of Hyde Park along with parts of Roslindale and Mattapan - said an Oct. 1 community meeting with developer Jordan Warshaw's team convinced him he could no longer serve as a disinterested third party working just to ensure everybody had a say:
It is clear to me that the development team has failed to make a case to Readville and our Dedham neighbors that this plan would benefit our community. Therefore I will not be supporting this project as it was presented.
Warshaw's current plans for the 6.6-acre site call for four buildings - with one housing 128 condos, the rest apartments. Warshaw has proposed 511 parking spaces.
McCarthy said acknowledged that Readville has something increasingly rare in Boston - lots of land ripe for redevelopment - and that the neighborhood is under increased pressure from developers of both residential and industrial projects.
"As a Readville resident, this project would affect my family as much as anyone reading this today," he wrote. Still, he added that even as he works for "what is best for the neighborhood," he will continue his role as "a steward of a fair and transparent process" for development proposals in the neighborhood.
McCarthy's statement does not address a second proposal near Readville station - a 305-unit proposal for a 2.2-acre site just north of Readville station. That proposal is not as far advanced as Warshaw's - unlike Warshaw, that developer has yet to trigger the formal BPDA review process by filing detailed plans.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
What exaftly doesn't he like?
By Stevil
Thu, 10/11/2018 - 10:48pm
We apparently need 69000 housing units in the next 12 years or so. They gotta go somewhere and we are running out of multimillionaires that want more small boxes in the seaport.
Sadly
By NorthEnd3r
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:56am
Sadly, 69,000 new homes is probably a gross underestimate of what we need.
1 million
By Stevil
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 8:55pm
Added to what we have would house close to 1 million people at about2.5 people per unit.
Can you link to the post?
By TGR
Thu, 10/11/2018 - 10:53pm
I'm not seeing anything on his FB page or website. I really want to soak up all the 'rationale' behind this magnanimous effort worthy of a Profiles in Courage award.
Sorry about that!
By adamg
Thu, 10/11/2018 - 11:15pm
I've added a link to the original post.
“We have tracks of land”
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:44am
“We have tracks of land”
He has no rationale beyond
By Meh
Thu, 10/11/2018 - 11:45pm
He has no rationale beyond not wanting the neighborhood to change. His Facebook post gives no specific objections *at all*. It's just NIBMY at the City Council level.
Totally vacuous
By TGR
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 2:19am
It's just overwrought praise for Readville and then a statement he's against it. No reasons or suggestions at all. At least make an effort, dude.
Plenty of rational for not
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 6:36am
Plenty of rational for not wanting neighborhoods to change, and so will you when you move out to the suburbs again.
When will you die?
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:37am
When will you die?
Rationale? Try panickale.
So then
By fungwah
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 10:51am
Why doesn't he give some of those rationales and explain how this project will impact them?
Some short-sighted
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 7:03pm
Some short-sighted politicians oppose *any* demographic change in their district. They know who elected them, and any new people could potentially support someone else.
Why cities need to embrace change
By NorthEnd3r
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:33am
http://cityobservatory.org/coletta_cities_change/
Dearth of leadership in this city
By Bill
Thu, 10/11/2018 - 11:44pm
These people are all over the place with progressive talk but painfully scared to upset the old cranky seniors who knew their parents and parents and will keep them in office as long as they put a forcefield around their parking spot and keep everything the same.
Local concerns matter to
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 6:27am
Local concerns matter to locals, cheaper apartments matter to transients.
I remember...
By Bill
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:59am
I remember so well that day I magically morphed from a kid living under my parents roof to an adult ready to plunk down tens of thousand dollar down payment on Boston real estate. Well I don’t but you must based on your comment. For me, ages 18-28 meant moving around a lot. Making lots of moves for things like school, finding jobs and better jobs, relationship, and ultimately honing in on where we wanted to live. So yes, people from around here, and those who may put down roots here, benefit from quality apartment housing. In fact, a place to live during the years you no longer want a fleabag college- style situation and being ready to own is a big factor in whether people stay around or decamp for some suburb or cheaper state. The idea that there’s some hard line between locals and “transient people” in a major city is so illogical I’m sure you don’t truly believe it. I grew up outside Boston. I’ve lived in this part of Boston for 13 years and owned my home for ten. My kid goes to school here and we’re staying put. Am I local or transient?
Excuuuuuse me
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 11:16am
When you live some place for THIRTY YEARS and YOUR KIDS cannot find an affordable place to live, you better fucking believe that cheap apartments will matter to YOUR SORRY FEARFUL ARSE!
Hate keeps people transient
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 12:32pm
Even if I was rich enough to afford a place in Southie, I wouldn't move back. The locals didn't welcome anyone. Of course now, none of them are left. The worst part is, for the most part, they thought they were being nice. I love living in Dorchester where (most) people welcome me.
This site is perfect for a dense complex. It is bounded by green space, and train tracks. The only thing it needs is peak hours extension of the 32. There are stupidly underused tracks of warehouses in Hyde Park. These transients that you despise help pay the taxes for schools and services.
I honestly believe that if neighborhoods continue to obstruct housing, the laws will change and we will have no say in what's built.
No, people deciding to move
By anon
Sun, 10/14/2018 - 1:58pm
No, people deciding to move around for jobs, or moving to new places and assuming they'll change around them, keeps people transient. A lot of people move to a new neighborhood and are fine adapting, some people aren't and choose to leave.
People decide to live where
By cinnamngrl
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 9:32am
People decide to live where they feel comfortable.
Ahem...
By BlackKat
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 12:39pm
People wouldn't need to be transient if they could afford to live here because there was enough housing.
People who move around are
By selmarts
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 3:02pm
People who move around are less likely to buy.
People who can't afford to buy
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 8:38pm
They get moved around a lot.
Many people who move around a
By anon
Sat, 10/13/2018 - 12:15pm
Many people who move around a lot do so out of choice not because of affordability.
However
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 10/14/2018 - 7:57pm
Many more get pushed around by the housing market, landlords looking to renovate or locate relatives in their property, etc.
I find that is much more common, particularly once people hit 30.
seniors
By mrotown
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 8:33am
The cranky seniors show up to meetings and they show up to vote.
Lol
By NorthEnd3r
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:34am
Lol at anon calling renters transients when s/he is too transient to come up with a username for this site
Lol, no actual response about transients and locals
By TreesLeaves
Sat, 10/13/2018 - 12:25pm
Lol at someone who is probably a transient to the neighborhood, doesn't like being thought of as such, and doesn't have any actual response.
Good for him
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 12:11am
for wanting what's best for his constituents and their quality of life.
His constituents
By Kathode
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:35am
(and I am one of them) also want more housing built so other constituents aren't constantly being displaced or possibly homeless.
File Missing
By NorthEnd3r
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:35am
[File missing: explanation]
Good politics
By Michael Sambuceti
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 4:26am
The Councilman going on record as being in the opposition is just good politics. A sizable chunk of the people who put him in office, people whom it’s his job to represent, are vehemently opposed to this - or any development in Readville. If I were him I wouldn’t like my chances for re-election saying anything other than this, and whether it is approved by BPDA or not, he can always point back to saying he fought it.
The Councilman knows change is coming to the neighborhood. He’s said it in these public meetings. He’d also warned people to consider the possible alternative uses to these sites; office space, last-mile distribution, that flood the roads with worse traffic than TOD residential.
I’m glad he took a position and I respect him standing with the NIMBY voter base, though I suspect if you were to catch him ina candid conversation, he would admit this Sprague Street project is probably the best option for this site and the future of the neighborhood. If you agree with this, email BPDA Project Manager Lance Campbell ([email protected]) TODAY and tell him.
This.
By Joe P
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:38am
I suspect this is exactly what this is. You nailed it. He seems to know this is not a bad project or certainly not the worst thing that could go there and has said so, but he can't overcome the NIMBY element in his own neighborhood. He doesn't want to risk his political base walking away from him, so he'll come out against it publicly knowing that the BPDA and Mayor will probably push it through anyway. Hyde Park doesn't seem to have an organized pro-housing contingent like JP and Roslindale do, might be time to form one to counteract the No crowd.
Joe- There is! At least, we
By Michael Sambuceti
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 11:40am
Joe- There is! At least, we're trying to get one going...
There's a change.org petition (https://www.change.org/p/hyde-park-residents-keep-...) to help show there is a sizable YIMBY crowd in Readville.
Not sure if you've already signed, but if you want to, I can add your email to a small correspondence group of a handful of Readville folks that are active in putting things like this together.
Like several others have said here, this project is NOT DEAD. It will come down to the volume of emails/letters that Mr. Campbell ([email protected]) receives in the coming days. I hate to sound like a broken record, but please email him voicing your support.
Is there a way to get onto
By chaosjake
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 2:57pm
Is there a way to get onto your mailing list without signing that petition? I'm for more residential development in Readville, like the proposed apartments on Hyde Park Ave north of the Father Hart bridge, I just don't support the Sprague Street proposal. It's pretty much the worst parcel to put that much housing on.
Good Short-Term Politics
By NorthEnd3r
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:50am
Bad for everyone in the long-term.
If we don't build homes in dense urban areas next to transit, then the demand for housing will not go away. Instead, those homes will be built further from the city in less transit-accessible neighborhoods leading to more people driving further distances.
Transportation is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions today, and the IPCC says that we have 12 years to get our act together to avoid some of the worst effects of climate change. I'd like to see our elected leaders show some courage instead of pandering to their NIMBY base.
Not Here
By DEVELOPMENT
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 11:13am
"are vehemently opposed to this - or any development in Readville" That sums it up, we need more housing just not in our neighborhood.
Wow. 492 units. And still
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 6:51am
Wow. 492 units. And still no plan to lessen traffic congestion which is worse than ever on a daily basis? I realize our streets and ways and main Routes are not the developer's problem, but what about seeing positive results from The Powers That Be in all those campaign ads?
Want to lessen traffic congestion?
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:37am
Stop driving.
It isn't the responsibility of incoming developments to fix problems that you cause with your excessive car use.
It's also not the
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 12:04pm
It's also not the responsibility of cities and towns to let developers make a profit so without dealing with traffic and other issues first.
Most of these people will hop
By Joe P
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:43am
Most of these people will hop on to the train to downtown to work and not drive during rush hour. The people who will want to live there will be attracted to that element. If they drive on the weekends, who cares, since traffic is minimal then. You have to think beyond the traffic you currently see, which is mostly suburban commuters coming into and through your neighborhood. If you don't build this housing in Readville for people to use the train, you will actually see more cars coming in as people are pushed further outside the city. Never mind if this ends up as some large distribution center with huge trucks clogging your streets. You have to think beyond this moment.
No, they will hop in their cars and drive to Fairmount
By adamg
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 10:13am
You can't get much more transit-oriented for a development than all the land around the Readville train station.
But there's a major problem: It costs $6.25 (or is it $6.50?) a ride. But drive a mile to the Fairmount stop and it's just $2.25. What do you think people are going to do?
To his credit, McCarthy has been trying to do something about this for a couple years now, but he's only a city councilor and the T doesn't care what he thinks. Maybe it's time for Angelo Scaccia to get involved, snort.
It's $6.75 one way, IF the
By chaosjake
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 2:39pm
It's $6.75 one way, IF the Franklin train isn't too full to stop for more passengers by the time it gets there, or running 45 minutes behind schedule, or cancelled at the last minute without warning. And IF you can safely navigate the dangerous street crossings on the way to the station.
No Kidding
By Christa
Mon, 10/22/2018 - 8:00pm
You have it exactly right--and that is the big big problem with that proposed development. There will be 497 units and 511 parking spaces??? no one will want to stay long-term, because you really would need a car to get anywhere...grocery store, pharmacy, day care, doctor/dentist, school, and even work, because everyone WOULD try to go to Fairmount station to pay the lower fare to get into Boston. Not to say that the Fairmount line works now; every time the snow/rain falls, or the wind blows, or the sun shines, or it's Tuesday, trains are pulled off that line and service becomes worse than ever. (There's no room for more cars around Clearly Square, either!) OK, you probably could walk to St Anne's church, but Fr Coyne insists that no one does that anymore, so walking there would probably be frowned upon....
Hyde Park and Readville are choked by the railroad tracks and the inadequate bridges spanning them. That old Gold Seal site is hemmed in by the tracks; it seems dangerous to me to stuff a whole lot of people in there, with hardly any way in or out. Also, those of us who've tried to navigate the Sprague St and Father Hart bridges, to go through Walcott Square (even when a train hasn't just come in) knows that adding hundreds more cars is going to make the place an even worse traffic nightmare. Another commenter said, so what if people drive on the weekends? well, that area is congested then too, unfortunately.
Transit
By readville2
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 10:23am
The trains are sporadic and overcrowded. Also there are no schools in walking distance (only one charter school). The is a bus to the grocery store but you would still have to walk 1/2 mile or so to the bus stop.
I think this location can work but there needs to be some thought to the infrastructure.
The developments at Forest Hills are transit orientated. This complex is essentially Dedham... and the Acela trains and the Sunday night loading of the freight trains are a big noise nuisance.
Making sure there aren't any
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 12:11pm
Making sure there aren't any major traffic problems before building something, some people think that's just NIMBYism, but it's not.
Yep. People may not drive to
By chaosjake
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 2:41pm
Yep. People may not drive to work, but they need a car for pretty much every other reason to leave the house. There is no grocery store, pharmacy, or decent restaurant within walking distance, and the only bar is full of super hostile locals who don't like new faces.
I Prefer Congestion
By NorthEnd3r
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:53am
I'd rather have congested streets than empty ones. At least congested streets show that our City is growing and worth going to. Check out Brockton for a place with plenty of parking and no congestion. It's downtown is clearly not thriving.
That said, the only way to "solve" congestion without compromising growth is to invest heavily in alternative transportation and make solo driving much more expensive. Fortunately, this proposal is next to a commuter rail station and at least doesn't have much more than 1 parking space allocated per home.
Before talking about congestion in Readville ...
By adamg
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 10:22am
It might be worth it to make a field trip there.
I don't live in Readville, but I drive through it a fair amount (I love the crumbling-industrial look and all the trains, also, the curly fries at Olympic Pizza are the bomb, and Meadow Road is a great place to look out at the Great Blue Hill and see some wildlife and even meteorites). And what I know is:
The area where Sprague Street, Neponset Valley Parkway and Hyde Park Avenue come together via the Milton Street (or Father Hart, if you prefer) Bridge is just horrible, a congested and dangerous mess of a bottleneck. It's not just a mess at rush hour, but all throughout the day, courtesy of commuters, trucks going to and from 128, dump trucks going to and from their yard near the train station, Amazon delivery vans (their local distribution center is on, ta da, Sprague Street), Ride cars (their parking lot is at the old Stop & Shop warehouse) school buses (both actually carrying kids and going to and from the city yard near the train station), etc., etc. And if you told me that the intersection of Milton Street and Hyde Park Avenue was one of the most dangerous intersections in the entire state, I'd believe you.
A lot of the problem could be fixed by installing lights at either end of the Milton Street bridge and revamping the lights in Wolcott Square, but city officials have been promising that for years (a couple of years ago, Marty Walsh even said he had $1.4 million for the work) and nothing ever gets done. Again, since part of the problem is overlapping city and state jurisdictions at either end of the bridge, maybe Angelo Scaccia, the dean of the State House, could step in. But don't hold your breath.
I'm not saying this rules out any development near the train station, but it's not like Readville streets have any room for more traffic without something actually being done about the current situation.
Adam, love you, but why are
By Joe P
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 10:59am
Adam, love you, but why are you assuming people responding here have never been to Readville? I'm sure it's unintended but it comes across as condescending. Yes, it's a pocket neighborhood but it's not on Mars. Traffic is bad everywhere in the city. Stopping a transit-oriented housing development is not going to improve that and would be less detrimental to traffic than most other uses there. That land is not going to stay vacant. If that letter articulated a legitimate reason to oppose this project as constituted, it'd carry more weight. But it does nothing of the sort, it just basically says to leave Readville alone. That doesn't cut it and no neighborhood has the right to cut itself off from the city like that.
Simple
By adamg
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 11:51am
Some of the comments read like the sort of thing only somebody who has never tried to turn left onto Hyde Park Avenue from the bridge would write.
Again, I'm not arguing that Readville should be walled off from the rest of the city and that all development there should be blocked. All I'm doing is arguing that anybody who does want development there needs to be realistic about the conditions that already exist there, and I'm not sure some of the people making comments here really know what those conditions are.
But as long as we are talking about development in general, and here I veer sort of off into Nimbyland (as somebody who lives in a single-family house), I think we also need to be careful about making "development everywhere at all costs, this is a city damnit!" arguments:
Boston is a large enough city that it can support both high rises and less dense development.
Downtown is obviously a place that can support the sort of high rises it's getting. But why are some people so intent on completely destroying less dense neighborhoods in the city? Readville in particular and Hyde Park more generally (and some parts of Roslindale) represent some of the last parts of Boston with what passes for affordable non-condo homes. There are ways to increase housing in the area without completely destroying the existing neighborhood - infill housing, for example (not Readville, but Roslindale Square, for example, has a number of one-story buildings that were originally two or three-story buildings - why not add those floors back, like the owner of the building where Redd's used to be, did?).
Readville is unique because it does have large amounts of old industrial land that could be repurposed (imagine what you could do at the Stop & Shop site) and what could be a regional transit hub (how many train lines at least pass through Readville?) . Done right, you could have new apartment/condo complexes clustered around the train station that don't directly affect, oh, the neighborhoods on the other side of Wolcott Square.
But is it being done right? Is anybody looking at how to improve transit in the area (and not just commuter rail, but the already over-capacity 32 bus) to accommodate the thousands of new residents that could potentially be moving to the neighborhood? Heck, what about people who would move there for jobs along 128?
Or are we to never learn the lessons of untrammeled development in South Boston?
This is vacant, old
By Joe P
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 12:32pm
This is vacant, old industrial land. No one is bulldozing single family homes to build this, that's a red herring. Sorry, but your argument does sound like a trip into NIMBYland as you noted. I respect you and think you're better than that considering how thoughtful and knowledgeable you always are. Mentioning Roslindale Square is especially ironic considering the opposition present there to the very thing you describe as a better plan. You mention the prior proposal to build on top of Redd's and Tony's Market at the time. I'm sure you remember the meeting where nearby residents opposed it due to traffic and parking. I read about it on UHub. People are always opposed no matter what or where they live and honestly I don't blame them. No one likes change to their specific core interests. That's why we need elected officials that are honest and consider the larger implications of things, and are not afraid to explain their rationale to voters. And yes, people are looking at ways to improve transit. Look at the Roslindale bus lane and the improvement that had made to Washington St. Do that with the 32 for Hyde Park Ave. There's a great solution to ease congestion. Making the commuter rail from Readville the same cost as the Fairmount line is also necessary. Those things should happen but are not reasons to prevent new housing that is desperately needed.
No, it wasn't vacant land
By adamg
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 12:47pm
There were several concerns operating on the land, at least before Warshaw proposed his complex (I haven't been done there in awhile, so don't know if they're still there). Whether a truck wash and a dance studio are the best, highest uses for the land is another question, but let's not pretend the land was just sitting there doing nothing (as opposed to the parcel on the other side of the train station where whatever company had been there had closed up shop long ago). And have you taken a look at the other side of Sprague Street? There are quite a few ongoing concerns there, in addition to the Amazon warehouse.
As for Redd's, yes, people made parking arguments. But the landlord still won permission to add those two floors.
Look at the Roslindale bus lane and the improvement that had made to Washington St. Do that with the 32 for Hyde Park Ave. There's a great solution to ease congestion. Making the commuter rail from Readville the same cost as the Fairmount line is also necessary. Those things should happen but are not reasons to prevent new housing that is desperately needed.
And there's the rub: Those are good ideas, but nobody's actually doing them. It would make sense to have them in place at least when the new units come online, but who is doing the work to make them actually happen? Yes, the city came out with a 2030 plan that calls for improvements along Hyde Park Avenue, but that gets us back to the Readville fare problem - is there evidence anybody at the state is listening to the city? And it certainly gets us back to the Milton Street bridge problem, which raises the same question.
Having 700 new residents
By Joe P
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 2:15pm
Having 700 new residents (give or take) living adjacent to a commuter rail line and using it will definitely put pressure on elected officials to wake up and do something then. Maybe that will even be the number that finally votes Scaccia out. It'd be nice to get that dog park finally as an added bonus. And a reminder that the Roslindale bus lane happened because residents pushed it hard and then supported it overwhelmingly. Even McCarthy didn't support it at first until he saw the overwhelming push from residents and decided to get behind it. It's a model for what is possible on Hyde Park Ave if people get organized.
There is plenty of room for these businesses and residents
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 2:48pm
This is not either business or residences. These apartments will need services nearby. And these businesses will get more customers.
Why would small apartment
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 7:26pm
Why would small apartment buildings destroy the neighborhood?
Look at places like Coolidge Corner and the fringes of Harvard Square. They're some of the most pleasant (and expensive) parts of the city, yet they have apartment buildings right next to single-family homes.
Putting traffic lights up on the bridge is an easy fix. So is reducing the obscene commuter rail fares. (Moving Readville to a lower zone doesn't fully fix the problem. No train ticket should cost 79 cents per mile when the IRS rate for cars is 54 cents per mile.)
Adding service to Route 32 is a little harder, but still possible. Giving it bus lanes should come after that.
But the real solution would be running small trains frequently on the commuter rail. DMUs use less fuel, require fewer employees, accelerate faster, are faster to board, and are way more reliable than loco-hauled trains. It's no wonder Europe has embraced them. Tiny rural villages can support hourly train service, while our dense neighborhoods are stuck with 3 hour gaps (or no service at all).
This isn't Brookline
By adamg
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 11:38pm
But you know what? Not even all of Brookline meets your definition of Brookline. Propose something like this south of Rte. 9, say, in Hancock Village, and see what sort of reaction you get. No, wait, you don't even have to do that. Just follow the news out of Hancock Village.
Seven and six-story buildings may be small along Beacon Street, but they are not small for Readville, a neighborhood of single-family homes - even without the READVILLE tower the developer agreed not to put up.
Drive around Readville's residential areas (it's pretty small, once you get there, you can probably see most of the neighborhood in 20 minutes or less). It's completely not urban, unlike, say, Brookline north of Rte. 9.
Putting traffic lights up on the bridge is an easy fix.
If it's such an easy fix, why hasn't it been done? It's not like people haven't been complaining about the bridge for, oh, two decades or more.
Tim McCarthy commenting on
By chaosjake
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 2:51pm
Tim McCarthy commenting on installing traffic signals on either end of the Father Hart Bridge on April 30, 2018:
Spring has come and gone and autumn is well under way. Wonder why people in the neighborhood don't believe anyone is working on our gridlock problem?
Have the neighbors organized
By Joe P
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 3:14pm
Have the neighbors organized themselves to 'fix the gridlock?' And if so, what does it look like and what is their proposed solution? I ask this earnestly. If you want politicians to pay attention, then organize behind tangible solutions and demand them. If you just think they can magically make traffic disappear, well, good luck. You act like you're the only neighborhood experiencing congestion....
You take "growth" as a
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 12:03pm
You take "growth" as a necessity, plenty of nice places don't have growing populations.
Reality
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 10:47pm
The reality is that growth is happening.
The reality is that supply is low and demand is high.
Now. If we ran high speed rail to Worcester, Brockton, Lawrence and Leominster we might have a chance to house people in inexpensive digs.
Otherwise? The city needs to build out.
Respect
By Max Filth
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 8:18am
Respect to McCarthy for not even trying to mask this as anything but “get off my lawn.” Typical for the old townies he represents. Has this guy done anything positive in office? All I see is him opposing things like this and that Roslindale charter school.
Broken Process
By Joe P
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 8:39am
The process for new housing in this city is completely broken. Older residents who have the time and economic privilege to attend an evening meeting should not be able to stop a project simply because they don't like change. That's exactly what happened here and he says as much. This has nothing to do with the pros and cons of this development and he provides zero substantive justification for his position. Marty Walsh's best attribute as mayor has been his push for new housing but he has to fix this broken system of "community process" which just favors the NIMBY crowd. We see the same song and dance in every neighborhood, when is this going to stop?
Residents deserve a say, not just developers
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 3:01pm
Anyone can go to a meeting. Complaining that residents want a say in what gets developed is completely irrational, because just letting developers do whatever they want doesn't always lead to good results either.
Read up on concerns beyond
By Fitz
Sun, 10/14/2018 - 9:46am
Read up on concerns beyond your specific interests. This site was identified in city planning documents as prime for housing. There was planning involved with this. This isn't about a developer doing whatever he wants. This site has been thought out. I don't understand why residents would walk away from a new park and cleaned up pond plus restaurants there just because they think traffic sucks.
That comment wasn't just
By anon
Sun, 10/14/2018 - 1:54pm
That comment wasn't just about one site just the general process.
Of course residents deserve a
By Joe P
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 8:36am
Of course residents deserve a say. But they do not deserve a veto. And that's what you and a lot of abutters want. Where are the needs of people, especially young people, who desperately need cheaper housing considered? Why do existing residents solely get to decide who comes and goes? That's not how cities work. Someone built the home you live in, imagine if existing residents had just said no and political leaders bowed down to them then.
Dedham?
By Parkwayne
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 9:56am
That's a tell I think that his constituency seems to include folks who are from Hyde Park and Rosi who moved on up to Dedham but don't want their old neighborhood to change. Like the South Shore residents of Southie...
I'm all for regional cooperation but I'll be damned if I want to hear my local rep to speak up for the concerns of people in Dedham who don't want more residents in Boston because it will inconvenience them with more traffic.
What?
By anon
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 10:18am
The project is located on the Dedham/Hyde Park line. Go back to the burbs!
He works for Boston residents
By Parkwayne
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 10:49am
We literally pay him to represent us - not the fine folks of Dedham. So in this specific case, he's supposed to advocate for us, the residents of his district in Boston (where I live).
Pages
Add comment