Mayoral Candidates and the End of the BRA?

F

FenwayResident

Active Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
760
Reaction score
3
First off, I figured this thread was appropriate for the Development forum since it directly talks about the BRA and its future...

Yesterday the Globe put out an article stating that both mayoral candidates want to eliminate the BRA as it currently exists and replace it with a different agency.

The Globe article linked above talks about the two candidates plans.

First off, Marty Walsh:
Mayoral candidate Martin J. Walsh unveiled a plan Thursday to replace the BRA with a new economic development agency whose director would work under a contract and be less beholden to the mayor’s office. He said the City Council would be given new authority to oversee the agency’s operations and finances, and members of the agency’s board would be subject to term limits.

“The BRA must be reformed for efficiency and transparency,” Walsh said during a press conference on City Hall Plaza. “It must be reformed for the residents, the investors, and the taxpayers in the city of Boston.”
Click to expand...

And John Connolly:
Walsh’s opponent in the election, Councilor John R. Connolly, has proposed similar changes to the BRA, advocating for a separation between its planning and development arms, as well as term limits for board members. He has also called for the establishment of more specific zoning rules across the city to prevent development from becoming subject to political manipulation.

Connolly told a group of real estate professionals on Wednesday that the BRA “needs a serious injection of transparency.” He acknowledged that the BRA has many talented staff members, but said the authority suffers from a reputation of being too remote from the concerns of citizens and businesses in the city.

“I want to see a BRA that’s going to function in a transparent manner and that’s going to put an emphasis on job creation and an aggressive emphasis on housing and being bold and experimental,” Connolly said. “We’ve got to make some changes in terms of how we carry out development in this city.”
Click to expand...

So it seems like both candidates want to impose term limits. That's great news for getting fresh blood into the system. I think having younger (and different) people will help make the agency more in tune with the large segment of Boston's population that is young. I also like Walsh's idea of having the City Council be a check to the BRA, although that would slow approvals down in return for less blatant favoritism.
 
Walsh's plan worries me because it's going to give NIMBYs even more power to hold back worthy projects for BS reasons.
 
There has to be a balance between long time neighborhood interests and valid concerns as well as those of the silent majority who don't mind things like 10 more stories of housing or a restaurant that serves breakfast on wednesdays.
 
I'd be very cautious about giving the city council any oversight of a nuts-and-bolts planning/development agency. All I can think of is the old adage "a horse is a camel built by committee."

Operationally speaking, these types of agencies are executive in nature and should report to the mayor in his/her capacity as the city's chief executive. That's not to say that the mayor's role should be dictitorial and that the board of such an agency should not be setup with definitive terms, which would enable members to have an arms' length independence from the mayor.

Ideally, I think the director of the agency should be hired by the mayor and serve at his/her pleasure, but board members should be appointed by the mayor to staggering 3-year terms, with the City Council confirming such appointment. Board members would be probhibited from serving more than 2 consecutive 3-year terms.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Putting it in the hands of councilors who are beholden to said "NIMBY's", could be more of a hindrance than anything.

Connolly on the other hand wants more specific zoning across the city, which again will create its own negative issues that could block good projects or scale them back when not necessary.

That said. Getting rid of, or significantly reducing the power and political influence in the BRA is a great idea.

edit: agreed with Busses, not jdr. I have no idea why the mayor should be the final say on development as I don't believe that is always going to be his/her strong point. A mayor is not a jumped up city planner.
 
The biggest NIMBYs that I know in Brighton are Connolly supporters.

What are they seeing?
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Walsh's plan worries me because it's going to give NIMBYs even more power to hold back worthy projects for BS reasons.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure for two reasons:

1) We can't even be sure at this point how this almost entirely new bureaucracy will operate or what the ultimate function will be. That's a huge question mark. From last night's Greater Boston, it seems like he just wants to mash the BRA into an expanded economic development agency. Not sure that'll really give the NIMBY's more power or not

2) Also from last night's Greater Boston, they gave Walsh and Connolly maps of the city and asked them to mark them up with development opportunities. Walsh basically drew over the entire city. From that alone, he hardly sounds like a NIMBY enabler. Ultimately, who knows though. For what it's worth, Connolly just marked up the Fairmount corridor and then talked about balancing neighborhood concerns about the BRA.
 
I am hesitant to give too much power to the city council. They should appoint but not necessarily oversee. They would naturally be more porochail in their views and beholden to 'community groups' that speak for only a fraction of the community.

I had always hoped the Future Boston Alliance group would do a better job organizing the younger, renter/student crowd of voters that make up 35% of the city into a voice that could shape dense and diverse development around the city and in new areas. So far its just 'innovation' units.
 
choo said:
I am hesitant to give too much power to the city council. They should appoint but not necessarily oversee. They would naturally be more porochail in their views and beholden to 'community groups' that speak for only a fraction of the community.

I had always hoped the Future Boston Alliance group would do a better job organizing the younger, renter/student crowd of voters that make up 35% of the city into a voice that could shape dense and diverse development around the city and in new areas. So far its just 'innovation' units.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I think the City Council should be limited to appointing new members. That way it's not an agency that is unilaterally appointed by one person, like the current BRA is. Once appointed I think the new agency should be allowed to run its own ship though.

As for getting younger people into the new BRA, I'm not sure if there are any mechanisms that could guarantee it. I would hope the city council would be in tune enough with the citizens of Boston to realize that a large portion of the population are young renters (not even counting college students). If it's not possible to get someone who is a young renter on the board, at least get someone who is sympathetic with them or had been one in the past.
 
^ I wasn't necessarily saying to put someone on the board. I don't just think you can throw some 27 year old guy in an Allston studio on the board. I was talking about more organization around this group and their interests at things like development meetings. I went to a couple FBA things, they have some good energy but dont have the presence at community and city meetings. That's where the NIMBYs make their case, get stories like 'shadows on the greenway' in the globe, and pressure the city and developers. When 95% of people would be supportive of initial proposals. I was hoping the FBA could institutionalize some of these sentiments.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
edit: agreed with Busses, not jdr. I have no idea why the mayor should be the final say on development as I don't believe that is always going to be his/her strong point. A mayor is not a jumped up city planner.
Click to expand...

I don't belive my plan would give the mayor the "final say" on development as the board would have a definitive term and would require council confirmation. Frankly, the mayor as constituted in the city charter, has the power to make appointments and oversee departments that he/she might not have much expertise in i.e. schools, police, fire, collective bargaining, DPW, budget. Why the exception for planning and development?
 
underground said:
I'm not so sure for two reasons:

1) We can't even be sure at this point how this almost entirely new bureaucracy will operate or what the ultimate function will be. That's a huge question mark. From last night's Greater Boston, it seems like he just wants to mash the BRA into an expanded economic development agency. Not sure that'll really give the NIMBY's more power or not

2) Also from last night's Greater Boston, they gave Walsh and Connolly maps of the city and asked them to mark them up with development opportunities. Walsh basically drew over the entire city. From that alone, he hardly sounds like a NIMBY enabler. Ultimately, who knows though. For what it's worth, Connolly just marked up the Fairmount corridor and then talked about balancing neighborhood concerns about the BRA.
Click to expand...

Good to know. Honestly I'm having trouble forming an opinion on whose plan would actually work better for smart development in the real world. Neither of them are specific enough in what reforms they would make to be helpful. They both leave far too many variables up for grabs to be held to anything.
 
jdrinboston said:
I don't belive my plan would give the mayor the "final say" on development as the board would have a definitive term and would require council confirmation. Frankly, the mayor as constituted in the city charter, has the power to make appointments and oversee departments that he/she might not have much expertise in i.e. schools, police, fire, collective bargaining, DPW, budget. Why the exception for planning and development?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I read that wrong. Although much like a president can put forward a potential supreme court justice, the council should be able to confirm or negate his appointments. I think the Mayor should have very limited ability to hand out jobs aside from his own staff and admins.

Not knowing the city charter, it may already be that way, and I hope it is.
 
Can you even believe anything they say before the election?
 
The city is zoned now, overly downzoned. That makes every significant project need a variance and that is where the Mayor gets his power. Without the Mayor and the BRA to get the variance needed by the developer, a project is off. That gives the Mayor lots of leverage to control growth, pick developers, control architecture, and indirectly funnel money to his voting block. Both candidates know this and will not give up that kind of power unless they are fools, and I don't think either candidate is. My guess is it will be over a year before anything happens to the BRA, and when it does you can be sure the Mayor will retain power. Right now the candidates are simply vying for votes and will say anything to help get elected.

This may sound cynical, but it is the unfortunate reality of power/politics.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
Perhaps I read that wrong. Although much like a president can put forward a potential supreme court justice, the council should be able to confirm or negate his appointments. I think the Mayor should have very limited ability to hand out jobs aside from his own staff and admins.

Not knowing the city charter, it may already be that way, and I hope it is.
Click to expand...

Just for information purposes, Boston uses a strong-mayor system whereby city departments are an extension of the exeuctive branch and the mayor has broad authority to hire/fire department heads, veto City Council legislation, and set city policy.

The City Council has final approval of the city's total budget and that is seen as their primary tool to keep the mayor honest.
 
The City Council has final approval of the city's total budget and that is seen as their primary tool to keep the mayor honest.[/QUOTE]

As I recall the BRA's budget is not part of the cities budget. If so, this must be the first thing to be changed IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top