Hey, there! Log in / Register
Developer's check briefly takes center stage at 10th Suffolk forum
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Gary
Gary always gives himself away, he passes money around under the different projects or company names but then just can't help himself, he reveals his ties in every meeting he attends.
He tore down those houses because he just assumed he would get approval. In the meantime people can't stand looking at the dirt pile, so they are more likely to push for some project.
Substance
The mailers I've been getting look like they're all written by the same person. We all need housing and schools and senior services. This forum showed some real differences in policy and in priorities. I've been impressed by Robert Orthman's approach to transportation and his emphasis on fixing the T and making it more affordable for these neighborhoods. And I agree 100% with what he said about Centre St. With about a week and a half to go, that's how I see my vote going.
NIMBY appeasers
Thanks for making my decision easy by competing for NIMBY points boys.
We need more housing... eXCePt iN weSt rOXbuRy!!!1
Orthman may have the right position on Centre St. but it doesn't matter because that's not a state issue and he'll never have to take a stand on it. It's up to Mayor Wu to fix Centre St.
Ironic because Orthman supported the project
I find Orthman's comments to be ironic, because Orthman publicly SUPPORTED this project in front of the BPDA on March 31, 2021:
Robert Orthman
Support
"I support this proposal. I grew up in West Roxbury and live down the road from Centre Street now in Roslindale. The two properties in question are both vacant and not in good condition. I don't think they provide much value to the business district or community. I frequent Centre Street and find this section empty-feeling and inhospitable due to these dead properties so their replacement is welcome to me. This project would bring more customers to the local businesses and provide more housing options in the community - both needed things in West Roxbury. It strikes me as entirely appropriate for this site. I would like to see similar buildings along Centre Street in West Roxbury, particularly above existing businesses where the buildings can support the additions. That is how you make a business district thrive and full of energy, something Centre Street in West Roxbury really needs. For all those reasons, I support the project. Thank you for your consideration."
https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fbpda.box.com%2Fs%2Fd2k635poo...
Thanks
Thanks for pointing that out. Ironic at best.
it seems like a clever bit of politicking
He never said he didn’t approve of the project. He disapproved of the developer’s actions in doing the demo before receiving approvals for the plans and pivoted to attacking MacGregor and catching him in a lie there. As someone who’s a fan of Orthman’s policy ideas and activism in Rozzie, it’s a bit underhanded and disappointing of a tactic, and I would’ve appreciated it more if he was upfront about his support of the project, but dislike of the developer’s tactics.
That's what he said
I watched the forum and that's basically what he said. The question before MacGregor said unprompted that he was proud to have opposed that project and was disappointed it went through, clearly trying to curry favor with the group. So Orthman discussed his overall pro-housing approach which he is pretty clear about then said that doesn't mean he's a rubber stamp when a developer acts badly (my paraphrasing). He ended by saying MacGregor took a big donation from Martell even though he just said right before he opposed the project. That was the context and it was pretty straightforward. MacGregor blew it up by calling Orthman a liar and denying the donation but it wasn't a lie which he then admitted.
Phew…
Phew! Glad to see these candidates will continue West Roxbury’s long standing tradition of only allowing banks and vacant storefronts on Centre St and not anything really productive or valuable to the stale neighborhood. Enjoy!
I know they have to court votes in West Rox
But, it’s frustrating to see them have to court the NIMBY vote. Tearing down that bank and collapsing house for housing is the right call. Yes, we should allow apartments on side streets. It’s okay, good even, to have multifamily housing away from loud, polluted arterials. No, Boston does not need more single family homes because with the price of land and construction costs, a SFH will not price out as a starter home this close to the core in the foreseeable future, if ever again. New homes in the 50s were less than 1000 sqft. Even in the 70s, they were around 1500 sqft. If the starter homes are gonna be that size anyway, might as well stack them up into a triple decker, or even a 4-plex or 6-plex.
There's been no substantive
There's been no substantive coverage of this race... thanks for this write up.
My gut, the subtle copaganda on his website, his vague policy, and the widespread support seen on the front lawns HOMEOWNERS in West Roxbury (usually paired with thin-blue-line merch) told me that MaccyG was not the man for me. But this right here proves it.
Red Flags
I also like to keep an eye out for signs on vacant lots and poorly maintained rental properties so I can avoid the candidates who are pulling support from real estate speculator and slumlord types.
I know almost nothing about
I know almost nothing about anybody in this race, but the house down the street that used to have like 10 "Trump 2020: Make liberals cry again" flags out front now has a sign for MacGregor. I'll pass.
All three candidates support
Candidates do. State representatives don't. It's the old, "I was for it, before I was against it.
Wasn’t there a lawsuit brought by C.A.D?
I wonder what happened with the builder’s lawsuit to proceed with the project. Personally, I’m getting kind of tired of the HigHLy hIsTorIc laNDmarK dirt patch, though that’s still better than the run down empty buildings that were there before.
Yep
He sued the BPDA in December because it had yet to vote on the project (you might recall the BPDA did the same thing with another project much hated in West Roxbury - the proposed charter high school on Belgrade Avenue, the school eventually gave up and found a site well away from West Roxbury/Roslindale).
Martell, or rather, C.A.D. Builders says time's up: By failing to act, the BPDA lost any oversight over the project and so he's asking a judge to order ISD to issue the permit he needs to begin construction - oh, and ISD messed up by reversing its initial decision the project needed no zoning-board of approval.
I just checked the docket and pretty much nothing has happened with the case since then. Martell filed an amended complaint last month that adds several specific city officials to the suit, in addition to the more generic BPDA and ISD, but the basic claims are still the same and the city has yet to file a reply.
The court calendar for the case says we can expect a ruling in 2025.
Ties and Links oh my
We can dig all we want on campaign money and clutch our pearls accordingly, but another story is the unpaid links.
Mr. O is an established member of Walk-Up Roslindale, and their advocacy work toward a more-pedestrian-friendly environment is on record, so a call for a road diet is a no-brainer coming from that campaign. The real story is that Walk-Up now embeds itself in the BPDA's Impact Advisory Groups (IAG) for new projects up front, so as to impose their agenda well-before the rest of the public can see it or weigh in.
Highly clever.
That way the agenda is not shouted down by the opposition because... well... most people will not know that the citizen advisory group is a stacked deck. It looks like this is what is coming straight from the Architect's drawing board, when in fact the IAG has had a few shots at it already.
People need to start connecting the dots. The public is 2nd class here and the fix is in.
Excerpts from BPDA’s site:
Excerpts from BPDA’s site:
What if I am not on the IAG?
The IAG process does not restrict residents or local organizations from submitting comments during periods designated in the Article 80 process of development review. Community meetings and comments will still play the major role in any development review process.
Does the IAG replace the established community voices?
The IAG does not replace or limit other community organizations. Every development project will continue to undergo the same thorough public review process. For instance, the BPDA will continue to require every developer to hold publicly advertised meetings for feedback from local residents. Every neighborhood or community organization will still have the option to comment officially on a project during the required comment periods. Many projects will require public hearings before the BPDA Board as well as other boards or commissions. IAGs represent a cross-section of individuals to provide greater public insight to the BPDA in weighing mitigation.
Still lots of opportunities for the public to speak up, just in a separate part of the process!
Also, if you want to sit on an IAG, make your case to a City Councilor, your State Representative, your State Senator, or the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services. All you have to be is a resident, business owner, or community org representative within an impact area.
In addition
you can now self-nominate to be included in an Art. 80 IAG when the Notice of Intent is filed.. This seems to be new, I've just noticed it lately.
Tin foil hat
Residents engaging in a public process open to anyone interested isn’t exactly the conspiracy you think it is.
So?
If it was one of these lousy nimby orgs filled with crotchety Westie Whites that bands together to keep the Centre speedway death trap, block schools and housing — I’d object to them on the IAG. But Walk-Up? More power to them.
leave it to the private
leave it to the private sector to solve .