March 17, 2000
Via e-mail
Councilor Maureen Feeney,
Chair, Boston City Council Government Operations Committee
City of Boston
City Hall 5th floor
Boston, MA 02210
Dear Councilor Feeney:
We are writing to express concern that the process of improving City Hall Plaza has been privatized and removed from public accountability. We would like to ask your aid in bringing forth the information that the community needs to understand what is happening to the Plaza, and in restoring Boston's civic square to your constituents, the citizens of the city.
Background:
In l996, the Boston Redevelopment Authority took the Plaza from the City of Boston by eminent domain. The taking was executed without opportunity for public comment. Mayor Thomas Menino invited this taking of the Plaza by the Redevelopment Authority, and waived the "just compensation" to which the citizens of Boston were entitled. By this taking, our civic square was converted into a redevelopment parcel, and the BRA designated the Trust for City Hall Plaza as "redeveloper". The Trust is a group of developers, investors, bankers, lawyers, construction corporations, and institutions with real estate interests.
In its "public-private partnership" with the BRA, the Trust publicly promised to implement community-oriented civic improvements on the Plaza, and to do so with private donations. However, since its inception, the Trust has pursued a controversial construction project on the Plaza, including a hotel and 700-car garage. While the public benefits of a commercial development on the Plaza have been unclear, the problems of privatization of public open space have been the subject of broad concern. And while it promised to fund its planning activities and resulting construction costs privately, the Trust has been substantially subsidized by the City, which reimburses many of the Trust's consultant fees and other expenses, including hotel marketing studies. Efforts to get complete information of the Trust's financial support from the City have been unsuccessful.
Facing public opposition to the privatization of civic space, and legal obstacles from the abutting General Services Administration, the Trust recently adopted a new strategy for implementing its private redevelopment plan: Phasing.
Current Proposal:
As Phase I, the Trust is proposing an arcade along Cambridge Street, linking its plan to that of the required Government Center Green Line station reconstruction. By publicly proposing only Phase I of Plaza redesign, the Trust avoids the issue of the hotel/garage while it promotes a relatively non-controversial design element along Cambridge Street.
The "community arcade" is being moved forward rapidly, legitimized by a Trust-selected Board of Advisors, the project's third "public" review group. The Trust has presented the arcade as its compliance with the previous Advisory Panel's directive to "do something now," but that Advisory Panel also recommended a dozen other actions, including the formation of a genuine "Friends of the Plaza" to bring in wide public participation; these, however, have received no attention.
Just the opposite has occurred. Board of Advisors meetings have been declared closed to the public.
Therefore, no one can witness the conduct of the public's business regarding the Plaza. Apparently, the Trust, having selected this "public input" group, assumes the right to conduct its "public" work in private. Citizens who ask to observe BoA meetings are told instead to attend "public meetings," where review of the arcade, as a given, is piggy-backed onto reviews of the T station redesign. By making the Plaza a rider on MBTA public meetings, neither the Plaza nor the station receives the proper public attention; this is not an adequate "public process."
More important, the arcade is in this forum reviewed out of its context: It is discussed in isolation, and not as Phase I of the Trust's much larger plans for the Plaza. Further, the abutting General Services Administration's plans for a new landscape design around their Kennedy building has not been adequately addressed in any public presentations.
During a recent "Informational Presentation" to the Boston Civic Design Commission, the Trust did not respond to Commission queries about future plans for the Plaza. At a similar presentation to the BRA board, board members asked about further phases, and specifically, about the status of the hotel/garage proposal. BRA staff replied ambiguously; however, according to a May l999 Report from the BRA to the Trust, the complex is planned as Phase II. Indeed, at his press conference presenting the arcade, Mayor Menino insisted that "there will be no hotel -- unless the GSA goes along with it." (emphasis added).
Board of Advisors members, too, have questioned the validity of focusing on what one called "a relatively insignificant item" without knowing the over-all Plaza plan. Evidently, BoA members were not shown the May l999 BRA Report showing the Phase II plans. Since public observation of BoA meetings is forbidden, the Trust's response to these questions is not known. Board members may be unwittingly legitimizing a design element they would not endorse if they could critique the full plan.
The Trust is no longer promising to fund the Plaza improvements. A City (BRA) commitment of at least $1.5 million (engineering studies may indicate even higher cost) has been made to fund this arcade, about which some of the Board of Advisors, the Boston Civic Design Commission, and many members of the public have expressed doubts in the absence of any larger context plans. The Boston Society of Landscape Architects has previously advocated publicly for a Master Plan prior to implementation of any individual design elements; this is good design, and simple common sense. However, this costly arcade has been described at BoA meetings as "easily dismantled" and "built so as not to preclude any future plans." Faint dotted lines on Trust plans still indicate an intent to build the hotel service drive long ago dubbed "the historic restoration of Hanover Street." This road would involve a complete regrading of the Plaza, and would only be useful, as the Trust stated at the last Advisory Panel meeting, to create a building site along the low-rise JFK.
It appears that the Trust and BRA are promoting this arcade for three reasons:
- to maintain project momentum in order to retain the interest of Trust investors;
- to gain public "good will" by responding to the Advisory Panel's recommendation to "do something immediately"; and, most important,
- to try, once again, to engage the GSA into a "partnership" position that would encourage their acceptance of a hotel alongside the low-rise Kennedy building
The third may be the most important goal, but there is no reason to believe the GSA will change their position; indeed, GSA representatives are preparing a landscape plan along the Kennedy building.
Process Concerns:
The Alliance is concerned that such an enormous financial outlay will be made for this "relatively insignificant item" when so many other open space and other community needs go unfunded. A recent letter to the editor of the Back Bay/Beacon Hill Chronicle quotes the City's Year 2000-2004 budget documents: "Over a six year period, $1.5 million will be authorized to acquire open space for both passive and recreational uses. Over the past three years, the City has authorized $1.9 million to clean up and conserve the City's open space and water resources and to create new areas for passive and recreational use." This arcade is a significant fraction of the City's open space budget. We need more information about its part in an over-all Plaza redesign to be sure it is justified.
The Alliance is also concerned about a "public-private partnership" in which a private group of investors has been given the right to use the community's civic place for commercial development. Its operations are entirely subsidized by taxpayers (indirectly through tax deductions, directly through cash grants and reimbursements); it is designing objects to be entirely paid for by the taxpayers. Yet, it is working behind closed doors.
In this situation, the Trust is simply a paid consultant with a conflict of interest. Yet, it is being subsidized by us, the taxpayers, to market its product to us, and it operates without public oversight or audit. Records indicate that the City has given the Trust at least $1,370,400; the public needs to know exactly how much public funding has gone into this project, what budgets that money came from, and where the money went.
We are further concerned that the Trust, with its conflict of interest as designated redeveloper, continues to hold close control over the future of City Hall Plaza. The time and money expended on this privatized Plaza strategy since 1994 could by now have given us an improved public space, without commercialization and with meaningful public participation. We believe that the civic space of our city can and should be properly improved and maintained by our elected, accountable government, with full and genuine public participation.
We believe that the BRA should return the Plaza to the City of Boston; the taking should be reversed. City Hall Plaza should not be a redevelopment parcel, but should be securely protected as Boston's civic square. If and when the people of Boston wish to de-accession the Plaza for private development, the City should sell the land at full fair market value, and return the millions of dollars in proceeds to the City treasury to be used for public goods and services.
Further, the Trust, which is a development investor and not a disinterested civic group, should not be the controlling entity of the Plaza redesign effort. The City should hire an independent design consultant using a competitive bidding process, and select a disinterested, professionally qualified consultant without a conflicting development agenda. The Trust should, of course, be welcome to participate, like any other private party, in such a public process conducted to support the design effort.
It is important to note that the Government Center Urban Renewal Plan, as it affects the Plaza, expires in 2004. At that time, the protection on the space conferred by the Plan will disappear. Unless the Attorney General's opinion holding that the Plaza is public open space protected under the Massachusetts constitution is honored, we fear that the city's primary civic space will, without your action, become, an 8.5-acre parcel of prime commercial real estate in the heart of downtown, to which the Trust's corporate investors will have full development rights.
City Council Hearing:
We ask that you schedule a hearing immediately, to bring forth BRA, City and public testimony, before any further action is taken on the Plaza. Past public hearings have featured Trust presentations of design plans. However, this hearing should focus on specific information that has not been available to the public. For this hearing, we ask that the Council request from the public agencies funding and directing these endeavors, the City and the BRA, answers to the following questions:
Legal and zoning background:
- Why did the BRA take the Plaza from the City by eminent domain for use by the Trust? What were the advantages to the Trust, in terms of competitive bidding requirements, taking powers, development zoning, tax arrangements, bonding capacity, etc., conferred by the BRA's taking of the Plaza?
- Why didn't the Trust simply form a partnership with the City of Boston to revitalize the Plaza?
- What legal provisions allowed the BRA to re-take the Plaza by eminent domain? Was it declared "blighted, decadent and substandard"?
- What City zoning changes took place around the time of the taking, declaring that urban renewal plans prevail over City zoning, and that for elements on which the URP is silent the BRA may make all decisions about development?
- What are the Trust's privileges and obligations as a commercial "redeveloper" of the Plaza, as agreed to by the BRA?
Impacts of the expiration of the Government Center Urban Renewal Plan:
- At the expiration of the Government Center Urban Renewal Plan in 2004, who will own and control the Plaza?
- What zoning will apply to the Plaza when the GCURP expires? How will it be determined what zoning regulations will be applied or changed (open space, building size, setbacks, FAR, land use, etc.)?
- What will be the development rights of the Trust on the Plaza at that time?
- Are the development rights of the Trust assignable to other developers?
The current development plans:
- What is the full redevelopment plan that is being
discussed by the Trust/BRA, including re-grading the
Plaza along "Hanover Street," and construction of any
structures -- hotel/garage, museum, or any others?
- How will the arcade function in that plan, (e.g., as a series of stalls for backed-in farmers-market trucks)?
- What will happen to the arcade in future Plaza development?
- What is the architect/engineer cost estimate for the arcade and the funding source?
Public accountability and open process:
- Since the Trust is no longer funding any Plaza improvements, why is the Trust still necessary?
- What public funds have been given to the Trust, and from what budgets (grants, reimbursements, etc.)?
- What have been all the specific uses of those funds?
- What steps are needed to protect the Plaza from development after the Urban Renewal Plan expires?
- What is the process to be taken for the return of the Plaza to the City?
- What is the process to be followed for selection of a City design consultant with no conflict of interest, to prepare a Master Plan for the Plaza?
- What are the steps needed to create a genuine "Friends of City Hall Plaza" to support a fully open public process for Plaza protection and revitalization?
It is essential that you hold this hearing as soon as possible, because the Trust/BRA joint venture has scheduled a series of "public process" events to finalize the approval of their plan. On March 22, a Board of Advisors meeting, closed to the public, will be held. On March 28, the BCDC DesignCommittee will review the plan. On March 29, the project will come before the BRA Board for approval. City Council action toward cost control or public oversight will be most effective if it is begun within the general timeframe of this "review" process.
As the new BRA Director begins his work and a search begins for a new Planning Director, this is a most appropriate time to re-examine our direction on City Hall Plaza, in preparation for the expiration of the Urban Renewal Plan. A design should be commissioned that will preserve the public space and improve both the Plaza and its environs, in concert with other downtown planning efforts.
We look forward to your response to this request.
Sincerely,
Shirley Kressel
President, ABN
Cc: City Councilors
Mayor Thomas Menino
Mark Maloney, Director, BRA
Clarence Jones, Chairman, BRA Board
Linda Haar, Director of Planning, BRA
Robert Marr, Boston Zoning Commission
Joan Goody, Chair, BCDC
Press