by @BarryRafkind in Announcements, Davis Square, Development and Zoning, Environment and Open Space, Events, Neighborhoods and Squares, Schools and Youth, Teele Square, Ward 7
Posted on May 11, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Last Modified on May 17, 2010 at 10:15 pm
| May 12, 2010 | ||
| 7:00 pm | to | 8:00 pm |
loading…
What is next for the Powder House Community School property? 2nd Neighborhood Meeting
WHY : The City is moving ahead with plans to rezone and sell the Powder House School property.
WHAT : Join your neighbors to learn how the City is moving forward with its plans for the disposition of the Powder House Community School property. Discuss how we can keep our concerns about the reuse of this property at the forefront of the decision making process.
WHEN : Wednesday May 12, 2010
7:00 – 8:00 PM
WHERE : Tufts Administration Building (TAB), 167 Holland Street
Presented By Your Neighbors:
Rachel Heller (Elmwood Street) Lou Ann David (Clarendon Hill Towers)
Barry Rafkind (Ossipee Road) Joyce and Richard Shortt (Packard Ave)
Alba and Costa Chitouras (Packard Ave)
For more information, contact Powderhouseschoolneighbors@gmail.com or call Rachel at (617) 299-1697.
loading…
If there is a future meeting, could you send a notice out earlier? This notice was posted late Tuesday night for a meeting the next evening. I would like to have attended but didn’t see the article until too late.
loading...
This meeting was weird. Basically, the Mayor totally ignored the previous meeting’s recommendation of “don’t rush to sell” and, at least according to Bob Trane, is trying to pit the entire city against Ward 7, almost as though he’d already gotten an Offer He Can’t Refuse for the Powderhouse School property and that there’s nothing else he could sell off to meet the budget shortfall. Given that any condo developer would give her eyeteeth to put up more ultra-luxury housing in this neighborhood, it’s not hard to guess what sort of offer that would have been, were that indeed the case – which would be in direct conflict with the only other consensus from the first meeting, No More Luxury Condos.
It looks, however unprovably, as though ru$h plan$ have been made for this property independent of the City’s still unformulated 20-year plan, and the city administration’s interest in public opinion is feigned at best. About the only concrete advice anyone had to offer at this meeting was, keep showing up to meetings, pull in friends, try to get commitments from the at-larges, do whatever we can to keep this potentially rich source of revenue from being sold off in a fit of panicked myopia – and that even that might “send a message” but only slow the inevitable. Did anybody get anything more hopeful out of it?
loading...
I’ve got it from a good source at Tufts University that the Mayor himself approached Tufts some time ago about buying this property. They said no thanks. So he’s been shopping this to private developers for over 8 months.
With the news about the city’s budget for this year and next, not good by the way, expect the Mayor to sell this very, very quickly to help balance the budget. Sorry Teele Square fellow residents, that’s just the way it’s going down.
loading...
I’ve attended this meeting as a non-resident of the Powder house area. Most participants were generally opposed to selling. However few good points were raised.
Alderman from Ward 7 announced that they Mayor just gave a presentation that there is a 8 million budget deficit and that the Mayor clearly wants to sell the property to raise money. Alderman said that perhaps the property that is located behind city hall should be sold instead. I said in the meeting that I would support selling both properties.
Another participant suggested that since the Mayor is so much in favor of selling the property perhaps the best course of action is trying to come up with the position that would get the most out of that outcome as possible, because the position of “all or nothing” would probably result in “nothing” for Ward 7.
Number of people also were opposed to selling because this is a bad market. A person who is a real estate appraiser mentioned that in fact in Somerville the market has rebounded and this is actually a fairly good market. It seems that if the process of rezoning and selling will take about a year, by then the market will even be stronger.
There were also one rather unfounded concern from the neighbors of the property that were concerned about developers “knocking on my parents door and telling them to move out because they want to build condos on their property.” I’ve mentioned that the prospect of eminent domain is rather not a real possibility. A state senator jumped in and said that eminent domain requires a ballot vote and clearly nothing like that has been proposed from the mayor’s office.
I do think that given the budget shortfall and other pressing concerns selling that property, as well as others that are standing idle, would be the best solution.
loading...
I’m not opposed to selling the property under the right conditions, but to sell it to balance the budget for one year doesn’t really help for more than one short year. If the City does sell it, the proceeds should go into capital improvements.
loading...
Ward 7 Alderman Bob Trane said there’s some kind of restriction on it that sale of the property has to go to debt reduction.
loading...
If that’s true that’s a more sustainable use for the funds than using them for one year’s operating budget. Debt reduction usually saves the city money for many years.
loading...
Mr. Levine, debt reduction only works if the city does not continue to spend and bond for crazy stuff. Just take a look at the DPW capital budget and see if this looks like something we should be going into longterm debt for.
It’s time the “know nothing” group on the BOA starts saying no to this Administration’s needless and wasteful spending.
loading...
This was a very popular topic at the Ward 7 ResiStat meeting, too, with just about everyone but the Mayor. We need to sell the School because of the budget shortfall, but it would be impossible to sell the school soon enough to help with the budget shortfall. We can’t afford to keep the property, but no, it hasn’t officially been decided yet. It’s good for people to stay Civically Engaged (TM), but it’s not clear that it does anything but give the City administration the chance to say “See, we listened” before going ahead with whatever they feel is best.
I admire everyone who’s still trying to make a difference on this issue, because we as a species need Don Quixotes to keep us apprised of what we can be if we try. But as a wage-earner and a tenant with no ed cred, no strings to pull, and no reason to want to play the token, I’m not really sure what the point is any more.
loading...
Oh Columbine! There is a point. “As a wage-earner and a tenant with no ed cred, no strings to pull, and no reason to want to play the token”, you could always CHOOSE to be your own version of Don Quixotes. Then we can all look to you to keep us apprised of what we can be if we try.
loading...
See, I no longer have the optimism to be a Don Quixote. I *did,* but lost it in the morass of disrespectful doubletalk. I suspect it could even be COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to continue to take part in a sham community-participation exercise. I’ll still show up for learning purposes when I can, and throw in my two cents when I feel like it, but after seeing such a huge, vocal majority brushed off like so many flies, I no longer have any illusions about my ideas carrying any real weight with the City.
loading...
Interesting that in all the discussion about the sale of the school the cost of building a new one was never raised, nor the profits of the sale (how much more money it might/could/does raise than it actually cost, and when those costs were incurred). How is it that the basic rules of selling are so different for the city than for its citizens? Are not those questions key to determining the “VALUE” and then critical to using the income the sale earns??
Finally, why is it that no one questions why the sale of the Powderhouse School is more economical than selling East Somerville School, Edgerly School, Cummings School, or the building (adjacent to a new subway station) behind city hall?? These are, in fact, all options, and weighing which of those options has the highest return on investment ought to at least contribute to that decision.
loading...
In fact, the Homans Building seems directly adjacent or on top of the projected Medford Street station. If that is the case, it’s value should be high enough – even now – to calculate a ROI high enough to subsidize the construction of a new East Somerville School, and the sale, thereafter, of either the Edgerly and moving Next Wave/Full Circle to the Cummings, or a more deliberate development of the Powderhouse to achieve the highest social, economic, and political return possible. Why is this kind of equation so foreign to this discussion? Who is being stupid? the city or the voters??
loading...
Joe@ With all due respect, neither the city nor the voters are stupid concerning the posssible sale of the Homans building on Medford Street.
On another blog concerning the sale of city owned property, I expressed this thought about the Homans. Until the state EOT Greenline planners can provide definitive schematics of the new station and its relationship to the Homans, Medford St., the School Street bridge, the neighbors and the surrounding businesses, the city would be wise to hold onto this property.
Some RE folks say that if the station design does not significantly detract from the city’s Homans property value, a savy developer(I assume commercial)would be willing to pay double the 2010 fair market value sometime in the not too distant future.
Time will tell. Until then, the Homans property should remain tightly in the city’s grip.
loading...
I’m not suggesting we sell it tomorrow. But I am suggesting that we evaluate the whole portfolio and track changes in value related to the changes caused by the Green Line and other development. If we had done that with Davis Square we would not have sold out to Tufts at a preferred price…and then rented it back as a beggar. For that matter, we should be carefully analyzing every major property for it’s tax and sale value – Prospect Hill School, for example, or the Boys & Girls Club – neither of whom pay tax, and one of which is already city-owned, and then leased back on a sub-lease to the tenant.
I used to live in Cambridge where the School Department is the prime tenant of an East Cambridge church which is largely supported by that lease on its tax-free land. I’m quite aware of the loops and byzantine nature of such deals, and wish only there were more like you, Joe, who can monitor, police, and challenge such deals in a timely fashion.
loading...
I’m not sure if you are referring to the Boys and Girls Club on Washington street as being city owned. For the record the Club purchased the building and rents to the School department. ( Which is moving out ths year)
loading...