It isn’t often that the words “surplus” and “parking” are associated with Davis Square. But the request currently before the Board of Alderman to declare three municipal parking lots surplus property in our hippest square does that as well as bring up the long simmering, but little acknowledged question of responsible management of city owned real estate.
As the Board of Alderman once again considers the sale of municipal property, I urge them to ask if Hotel Davis Square is part of comprehensive municipal real estate plan that provides long-term benefit to the residents of Somerville. Will the city continue to lease space indefinitely while retaining ownership of 160,000 square feet of unused space? If a hotel is built on one of the parking lots, what becomes of the other two? What do the people of Somerville gain by having a unique, boutique hotel in Davis Square? Does it address our need for more affordable, family friendly housing? Does it add open space to our crowded city? Does it bring with it well-paying jobs, or significant revenue? Or is Hotel Davis Square a distraction, something that will keep the city from the hard, pragmatic, not particularly exciting work of sound property management?
This year, as it in the past, the city will pay rent to Tufts University and the Boys Club for the spaces used by SCALE, the school department’s central administration, and the Council of Aging offices. The amount budgeted for rent in fiscal year 2008 is $641,695. The irony is that the office space that the city leases are in buildings that the city once owned. Meanwhile, as the 117,000 square feet of the Powder House Community School, and the 43,000 square feet of the Homans Building sit padlocked and empty, the city is looking to lease more space for police substations in east and west Somerville.
In 2003, the city convened a municipal real estate review panel. These outside experts recommended that the city discontinue renting space, close City Hall Annex and consolidate the offices housed in those places in the renovated Powder House School. In December 2004, when announcing that at an architectural firm had been hire to draw up plans for the renovations, the mayor declared “This building has the potential to save the city a significant amount of money.” There was to be parking for 75 cars, while preserving the full-court basketball area; the building was to be converted from electricity to natural gas, plumbing and electrical systems upgraded, windows and hardware replaced, the gym was to be preserved for community use, all done within a sustainable “green” design framework. Construction was to begin in the summer of 2005. Why are we chasing a boutique hotel, when far-sighted, commonsense real estate projects are lying at our feet?
Suzanne Bremer is a long-time Somerville resident.
Posted in Development and Zoning, Politics
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I don’t quite understand how these two plans are related? Does the hotel plan somehow exclude the city from going forward with the Powder House School plan? With only the minimal details provided here, the hotel plan seems perfectly fine, if not actively desirable.
You’re right that we need our officials to get on top of the Powder House project, but I don’t see that they can’t go ahead and do both. Are there other arguments against the hotel? Your questions are oddly chosen: “Does it bring with it well-paying jobs, or significant revenue?” seems to me to come with a “yes” answer… Open space and affordable housing doesn’t have to be a net positive for every single transaction the city undertakes, does it? They continue to make great strides there in other projects, I believe, earning them some room for some more commercial prospects as well… no?
April 26th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Instead of moving towards affordable housing in Davis Square, why not move towards more expensive housing? This would bring in higher property taxes which would benifit the city and be more beneficial to the whole community?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I agree with Chris. The questions seem to be all over the place. The arguments are not cohesive. I’m not sure I understand that benefits of the hotel either, but the arguments brought up don’t seem to be relevant.
Brabus: I think I agree with your point, even though the way you worded it gives the wrong impression. In any case, I really don’t understand the whole affordable housing thing. I understand why people want it, but I have a few issues.
(1) Affordable for who? I can afford the house prices in Davis Square as they are, but maybe not if they go up more. If you somehow offer homes that are half the price, there are still people who cannot afford those prices. So who are we catering to? Is this a mission with no real, tangible goal??
(2) I have yet to hear a plan that makes economic sense. Affordable housing simply raises the prices of the “non-affordable homes”, because it reduces the number of homes on the open market. Rent control was removed because it was a bad idea, so why can’t people see that affordable housing is just like rent control for home owners?
I have other arguments against affordable housing, but those are my main ones.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:16 am
There are two threads that tie together the seemingly random questions that I posed in the original post. First thread - during the mayoral race last November, the issues that people talked about most frequently were, in descending order, affordable house, economic opportunity and open space. This is what a lot of people want. Second thread - City Hall has limited resources. The planning division of the department of Strategic Planning and Community Development has 26 employees, and the projects listed on the division’s web pages suggest that their plate is rather full. The Green Line extension, development of Assembly Square, Union Square and Lower McGrath/Inner Belt, the transportation matrix, an Open Space and Recreation plan, the Community Path, Maxpax planning, and a Ward 2 Planning Initiative - how do they prioritize their work? Does the hotel in Davis Square come before or after the Community Path? Or the Green Line extension, or Inner Belt, or the Open Space plan?
In a February 2007 study (pdf), the Pinnacle Advisory Group estimated that a hotel in Davis Square would generate between $590,900 and $694,500 in property and hotel room taxes annually. This is about what the city pays each year in rent. They also estimated that the hotel of the type and size that would do best in Davis Square (a nationally branded, limited services hotel with 80 to 125 rooms) would generate 23 to 35 jobs. Again, in terms of priorities, how does a project that creates 35 jobs stack up against the Green Line extension, Maxpax, and so on? Drilling further down, how many of those 35 jobs will pay salaries that allow one to live in Somerville? With that, we have circled back to affordable housing.