Councilor Wu's Proposal To Abolish The BPDA (65-pp. report)

I'm keeping an open mind. It's not like the ZBA was filled with a ton of pro-development people in the first place.
 
If the mayor can’t get rid of them, who can? Serious question.
 
Comparing the Globe, BBJ and B&T coverage, it smells like maybe there are elements of other factions in the city who who are driving this pushback? Rojas' concern about local voices still being represented, Ted Landsmark's lauding of NIMBY kvetching and extortion community process...seems like several groups of people wanted to give Wu and Jemison a black eye, here. It's also worth remembering that plenty of developers seem to have been fans of the devil they know versus the devil they don't, if you think back to how they reacted to Wu's candidacy and how she touted the idea of rezoning the city on the campaign trail.
 
Blackbird said:
If the mayor can’t get rid of them, who can? Serious question.
Click to expand...

Bumping this because there’s no way that the only way to dissolve the BRA is to have active members vote in favor of dissolving it.

No one’s going to vote in favor of eliminating their own job. There has to be some other way of going about it.
 
Blackbird said:
Bumping this because there’s no way that the only way to dissolve the BRA is to have active members vote in favor of dissolving it.

No one’s going to vote in favor of eliminating their own job. There has to be some other way of going about it.
Click to expand...
Also, there has to be some way to hold the BPDA accountable to policy objectives of the City. The Mayor and City Councilors were elected. The BPDA Board was decidedly NOT!
 
www.bostonherald.com

Debate begins over revamping how Boston builds

Restructuring the city’s planning department for the first time in nearly seven decades is off to a shaky start.
www.bostonherald.com

Sounds like a big point of contention is whether on not to keep the BPDA planning board separate from the city.

Can anyone with more knowledge on the issue explain what the pros are to keeping the board intact even if the rest of the agency gets absorbed by the city?
 
Blackbird said:
www.bostonherald.com

Debate begins over revamping how Boston builds

Restructuring the city’s planning department for the first time in nearly seven decades is off to a shaky start.
www.bostonherald.com

Sounds like a big point of contention is whether on not to keep the BPDA planning board separate from the city.

Can anyone with more knowledge on the issue explain what the pros are to keeping the board intact even if the rest of the agency gets absorbed by the city?
Click to expand...
There are things a city government can't do that an quasi-governmental agency can (easily buy property is one of them). This is something anyone who understands government and the Federal redevelopment programs understands. And it is one of the (many) flaws in the white paper.

Just to be clear, I found the white paper embarrassingly ill informed (I work in planning) but I have no problems with the mayor moving the BPDA into the city. She now owns development and planning in a way previous mayors have tried to avoid. The BRA always did what the mayor wanted now it's just going to be explicit.
 
DwnTwnr said:
There are things a city government can't do that an quasi-governmental agency can (easily buy property is one of them). This is something anyone who understands government and the Federal redevelopment programs understands. And it is one of the (many) flaws in the white paper.
Click to expand...

So the main benefit of leaving the board intact would be using them to purchase land?

DwnTwnr said:
Just to be clear, I found the white paper embarrassingly ill informed (I work in planning) but I have no problems with the mayor moving the BPDA into the city.
Click to expand...

Can you expand on this a bit? What was so bad about the original proposal?
 
Blackbird said:
So the main benefit of leaving the board intact would be using them to purchase land?



Can you expand on this a bit? What was so bad about the original proposal?
Click to expand...
The real point is not buy land, but buy, sell, lease land. BPDA owns a lot of parcels around the city still. As a quasi-government agency they can curate transaction for those parcels much more easily that the City itself can do. Recall all the noise and hand wringing when the City disposed of the City-owned garage that is now Winthrop Center. The City is held to the standard of getting the highest price for the transaction, regardless the long-term benefits. BPDA is allowed to look at long-term benefits in lieu of absolute short-term transaction value.

From a planning context agency ownership, leasing, sale (and potential purchase) of public land can create more total benefits.
 
In addition to the transactional benefits described above, a huge pro in favor of keeping the board independent is keeping it away from city council "oversight" and "accountability." These are code words for giving city councilors veto power or heavy influence over BPDA development decisions, which would be a disaster.
 
SuffolkHeights11 said:
In addition to the transactional benefits described above, a huge pro in favor of keeping the board independent is keeping it away from city council "oversight" and "accountability." These are code words for giving city councilors veto power or heavy influence over BPDA development decisions, which would be a disaster.
Click to expand...

Shouldn’t the city’s development/zoning be decided upon or at least approved by elected officials?
 
Blackbird said:
Shouldn’t the city’s development/zoning be decided upon or at least approved by elected officials?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The mayor appoints the BPDA board, the Zoning Commission, and the ZBA board (ideally) based on their expertise in land use, planning, architecture, etc. If city residents do not like the direction the city is going in regarding development/zoning, they can vote the mayor out. Beyond that, allowing elected councilors veto power for individual projects in their districts breeds corruption and favoritism.
 
SuffolkHeights11 said:
Yes and no. The mayor appoints the BPDA board, the Zoning Commission, and the ZBA board (ideally) based on their expertise in land use, planning, architecture, etc. If city residents do not like the direction the city is going in regarding development/zoning, they can vote the mayor out. Beyond that, allowing elected councilors veto power for individual projects in their districts breeds corruption and favoritism.
Click to expand...
Fully agreed that approvals shouldn't be at the whim of an elected official. But couldn't this also be achieved if the city council codified a more liberal zoning policy such that the majority of projects were by-right instead of by-appeal?
 
kdmc said:
Fully agreed that approvals shouldn't be at the whim of an elected official. But couldn't this also be achieved if the city council codified a more liberal zoning policy such that the majority of projects were by-right instead of by-appeal?
Click to expand...
You get some of the same favoritism when elected officials are too close to the zoning policy process as well. It is rather amazing what gets up zoned and what does not, when councilor's interests (and votes) are at stake. Best to have the planning details worked out (and negotiated with stakeholders) by experts, with a simple up/down vote at the city council level.

BTW comprehensive rezoning is really hard work, particularly in a old city like Boston with the massive array of stakeholders.
 
FWIW, if the 2025 mayoral race kicks-off in earnest around Memorial Day weekend, 2025, then... she has just 14 months to gain any kind of momentum/watershed victories with this interminable slog that is reforming the BPDA.

So far, she has... [checks notes] zero victories in this domain. For any other politician, of course, that might not be a big deal--except, as we all know, she's staked her mayoral identity on a radical overhaul of the BPDA.

Thus... tick-tock, tick-tock.
 
DBM said:
FWIW, if the 2025 mayoral race kicks-off in earnest around Memorial Day weekend, 2025, then... she has just 14 months to gain any kind of momentum/watershed victories with this interminable slog that is reforming the BPDA.

So far, she has... [checks notes] zero victories in this domain. For any other politician, of course, that might not be a big deal--except, as we all know, she's staked her mayoral identity on a radical overhaul of the BPDA.

Thus... tick-tock, tick-tock.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say that; she staked her mayoral identity on bringing a non-Tammany Hall northeast graft blue dog attitude to this tired and anachronistic old city’s government. And I think overall she’s doing a pretty good job, especially as an outsider. If she can get Squares and Streets through, that will be a success, but like everything else, all the greedy little community leaders are knives out for her over this as well.

I didn’t realize the points made above by @DwnTwnr @JeffDowntown and @SuffolkHeights11 — good perspective, these issues would never have occurred to me. I still think the BRA was a mistake from the beginning but it does make more sense now…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top