Fall 2008

Historical Commission also has secret side

In “Preserving Power” (CW, Summer ’08), you raise questions about the lack of transparency in Secretary of State William Galvin’s awarding of tax credits for historic rehabilitation. There should also be questions about Galvin’s oversight of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, which is legally authorized to protect historic properties and districts listed in the State Register of Historic Places. The MHC has used its own ambiguous regulations to expand its purview beyond the properties formally listed in the State Register to the many more properties merely on the Inventory of Historical and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth. The Inventory lacks the transparency and certainty of the State Register, and as a result there are no ready means for developers to conduct full due diligence on Inventory properties in the planning stages of projects. Perhaps more importantly, there are no standards for properties to be listed on the Inventory, which has astonishingly broad coverage.

Based on our experience, the MHC is institutionally invested in preserving its ability to subject as many projects as possible to its review and consultation processes — and in using its leverage during the time-sensitive development process to secure costly or project-threatening concessions, even in the absence of statutory authorization for MHC review. Likewise, the MHC’s interventions and subsequent consultations with stakeholders provide a further platform for project opponents to delay and threaten legitimate projects with no impacts on listed State Register properties.

The MHC’s approach is contrary to law and is bad public policy because it allows the commission to make its own rules as it goes along, rather than allowing developers to know in advance what is expected of them.

David Begelfer
CEO, NAIOP Massachusetts
Needham

Recreational areas are CPA-worthy

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and so it is with the photograph of children enthusiastically enjoying Newton’s Pellegrini Park (“Moving the Goal Posts”).

The article correctly states that Community Preservation Act spending for open space assets such as parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields is increasing. This spending, however, continues to be dwarfed by spending for open space, historic preservation and affordable housing. Communities are turning to their CPA funds for the creation and preservation of recreational areas because, in many cases, it is the only funding available for these quality-of-life assets in tough times. In addition, in more urban communities like Newton, there is little or no open space left to preserve.

That’s why the Community Preservation Coalition and other groups support the legislation you cite that would, among many other things, more clearly guide recreational spending of CPA funds. The bill would also make it easier for cities, which are underrepresented among adopting communities, to pass CPA. Senate Bill 137 received a favorable recommendation in the Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business during the last legislative session and will be considered again when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

The fact that citizens in 133 communities have now voted to increase their property taxes by up to 3 percent is further testimony that the CPA, while in need of some legislative fine-tuning, will continue to be popular in communities where people want some local say in their common destinies.

Clarissa Rowe
Chair, Executive Steering Committee
Community Preservation Coalition
Boston

Why politicians won’t privatize the Mass. Pike

An omission in Gabrielle Gurley’s story on how to address the state’s transportation finance problem (“Pump It Up”) is any discussion of leasing the Mass. Pike to private operators. A growing number of states and cities have successfully turned to this option to pay off debt and to support other transportation needs, while gaining more efficiently run toll roads. It is no surprise that the traditional transportation interests aren’t interested in this option, since it will put an end to the political leverage over Turnpike jobs and contracts, and also dampen support for a gas tax hike to finance more transportation jobs and contracts. The long-term-lease option helps only taxpayers and toll payers. I guess that’s why it is not even being discussed by policymakers.

Steve Adams
Holden