I am reserving judgement on the human foosball stadium until I know more about what kind of out of town traffic it would add to Washington Street – and how it will be mitigated.

That said, I am disappointed that this group has chosen to republish their op-ed in the Somerville Journal without correcting obvious mistakes pointed out here or even attempting to defend their proposal.

This blogger has a thoughtful take on gentrification in general that reminded me of this proposal. To me, it smacks of residents trying to “pull up the ladder” at the same time they are demanding the taxpayers provide them with public transit to their backdoor. Bill Shelton is exactly right when he says: “Transit nodes are exactly where you want to build vertically”.

I was mostly addressing Bill Shelton’s comment because I didn’t want readers to get the impression that Somerville used to have more jobs and Cambridge fewer jobs per resident. As far as blue-collar jobs, Cambridge used to have a lot more than Somerville and now has very few, while Somerville still has some. I worked in the Inner Belt industrial park for thirty years myself. I think it’s interesting that the City of Somerville is rezoning that area in hopes of replacing the industry and warehouses with “higher and better uses.” That’s my personal example of a development-for-taxes strategy where nobody seems to be thinking about the consequences in terms of middle-income working folks.

How is a 55 foot height limit going to keep “middle-income working class people” from “going going gone” out of Union Square?

100 foot tall buildings should not be considered out of scale for a city of Somerville’s population density. We need more commercial property growth and more green space – more low-rise development isn’t going to cut it (there is already way too much of that in Somerville). If the private capital is there, it’s past time for a little bit of vertical growth.

Just a few facts here. Somerville has always been much more residential than Cambridge. Cambridge has had more residents, but many more packed into big apartment buildings and dorms. But the main point is, Cambridge always had a lot more industry than Somerville, just like now it has more office buildings, labs, etc. Harvard and Central Squares are denser than any Somerville square. Porter Square is more like Somerville. Most of the industry and development goes on in the eastern half of Cambridge because it’s so close to the center Boston.

Lots of Cambridge residents complain about over-development but the folks who run the city just keep on developing it. (Our City Manager style of government is very friendly to this process) They seldom see a development proposal that they don’t like. Every time, we hear how good it is for the taxes and construction jobs. But guess what—our middle-income working class people are going, going, gone. The tax base expands, sure, but high-income professionals keep coming in to be near the new developments which cater to them.

Maybe Somerville would like a few of our luxury high-rises and biotech labs. I wish we could figure out a way to roll some over to yall!

The main reason we keep having these taxes versus human-scale conflicts is that we rely on the property tax for so much of our city budgets. Why not get rid of the property tax and switch to a local income tax to support city services?

I’m also more and more concerned about the arts overlay. Why are we favoring artists and not, say, cops or teachers or auto mechanics? If Union Square is affordable, the artists will stay. Shouldn’t it be affordable for everyone?

Did you know that Cambridge has about 20% more people than Somerville but their annual budget is almost 250% larger than Somerville’s? That discrepency has relatively little to do with Harvard, Central or Porter Squares and very much to do with the numerous 100 foot plus buildings in KENDALL Square.

We will not close the tax gap with Cambridge any time soon, but in order to progress as a city we need to narrow it a bit. If we want:

* to improve our schools, parks and libraries (my top 3 priorities)
* better pedestrian and bicycle access on public ways (probably my 4th priority)
* to make our sidewalks and public buildings more accessible to the disAbled,

we need a combination of smart management and adequate funding.

With the combination of the aforementioned budget discrepancy with our neighbor city and the general state of the economy and the Commonwealth’s budget, adequate funding is definitely a question mark.

I would be more than willing to pay higher property taxes if I could ensure my priorities would be among those addressed – but I have a feeling I would be in the minority. (If you disagree with that, by all means start a campaign for higher property taxes – I will sign on!). The other way to increase revenue is to increase the tax base. I suspect that is the objective with allowing taller buildings in the redevelopment of Union Square.

Point of Information: a 100 foot tall building will rise 100 feet “above grade”. “Above grade” has nothing to do with “above sea level”. Bottom line, it’s an 8 or 9 story building – I would have no problem with building even taller.

Housing pays a tax rate that is two-thirds that of commercial uses, but housing creates twice the costs in city services. So we have a city on welfare. State aid makes up more than a third of Somerville’s budget. Somerville’s per capita state aid is third in the Commonwealth, after Chelsea and Lawrence. When state aid gets cut back, as it did in 2001-2002, the city has to lay off hundreds of workers. Boston and Cambridge have two jobs for every resident; Somerville has two residents for every job.

Transit nodes, such as the Green Line in Union Square, are exactly where you want to build vertically. Especially in the city that is the densest in New England. Imposing height limits because some people who feel entitled don’t want their views blocked is a bad idea. Planners have to weigh the desires of the few who have nice views and don’t want them blocked, against those of homeowners who need tax relief and workers who need living-wage jobs.

This is a good example why people who grew up in Somerville resent some (not all) newcomers. Since the end of rent control in 1996, many people who had lived in rent controll apartments came here. They were not low income people. Paying cheap rent for years gave the means to buy a home here.

They drove up the price of housing and, with it, the property taxes that long time home owners of modest means must pay. They jacked up the rents in their rental units to pay for the mortgages on their inflated housing prices. Not a few long time residents have been forced out.

The taller the office buildings are in Union Square, the more taxes they produce, and the more tax relief for homeowners.

Many (but not all) of the members of your group have come here since 1996. You think that you can define for your neighbors what good design is. You don’t want the views from your own houses blocked. You want want Unions Square to fit your own “aesthetics.” The current Union Square plan is already a compromise to your complaining, but you don’t want to compromise.

Aren’t you the Cambridge city planner who worked on North Point? Would you please explain why it is not hypocritical for you to plan buildings there that are much taller than in the Union Square plan, but to reject them in your own neighborhood where they can benefit working people?