New "Anti-Shadow" Laws Proposed for Boston

I guess they heard about BU's super-secret plan for a new super-tall student residence hall. Two thousand feet high!!!!! That's why they threw in Magazine Beach in Cambridge in the no-shadow zone.
 
a630 said:
ooo, just in time for the 100th anniversary of MA's contribution to the foundation of zoning, Welch v Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 1909, and it's even the same issue.

"In determining the validity of a state statute affecting height of buildings, local conditions must be considered, and, while the judgment of the highest court may not be conclusive, it is entitled to the greatest respect, and will not be interfered with unless clearly wrong.

Where the highest court of the state has held that there is reasonable ground for classification between the commercial and residential portions of a city as to the height of buildings, based on practical and not esthetic grounds, and that the police power is not to be exercised for merely esthetic purposes, this Court will not hold that such a statute, upheld by the state court, prescribing different heights in different sections of the city, is unconstitutional as discriminating against, and denying equal protection of the law to, the owners of property in the district where the lower height is prescribed.

Where there is justification for the enactment of a police statute limiting the height of buildings in a particular district, an owner of property in that district is not entitled to compensation for the reasonable interference with his property by the statute.

Chapters 333 of the acts of 1904 and 33 of the acts of 1905 of Massachusetts, limiting the heights of buildings in Boston and prescribing different heights in different sections of the city are, in view of the decision of the highest court of Massachusetts holding that the discrimination is based upon reasonable grounds, a proper exercise of the police power of the state, and are not unconstitutional under the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

193 Mass. 364 affirmed. "
Click to expand...
Ah but upholding local government zoning is not the same as the state imposing its own de facto zoning on a city or town for property(ies) in which there is no state interest. The state could find an interest in the Greenway and the Esplanade, but I doubt there is a state interest to be found at Copley, the Public Garden, or the Common (does the state own the land; has the state invested major sums in developing, maintaining the property?).
 
Quite the imagination, tobyjug, but it's hard to have faith that all those complex maneuvers are actually taking place behind the scenes.

Even if they were, working to influence the experienced legislators themselves can only have a null impact, at worst.
 
Have faith that those who hold the levers of power will always follow their own self interest.

P.S. I don't have much imagination. That is why I became a lawyer!
 
Boston is going to end up like Washington DC aside from the existing skyscrapers, but instead of being restricted from building anything taller than a landmark, we get restricted by shadows. It's beyond sad.
 
Menino actually makes a good point... THEY ALREADY DO THIS TODAY!! I agree with Toby this is self-serving and isn't all that concerned with shadows, if it passed they'd be happy, if it doesn't but they get a limo service and the chance to use a penthouse then its win win.
 
stellarfun said:
...That's why they threw in Magazine Beach in Cambridge in the no-shadow zone.
Click to expand...

Since when does Cambridge have a beach. (Sorry but Magazine Beach don't count)

tobyjug said:
P.S. I don't have much imagination. That is why I became a lawyer!
Click to expand...

OK you always make me laugh, but I just spit up some good beer onto the table because of that!

PS. I've spoken to Marty Walz in person about development issues before and she's a f**cking idiot on that stuff. I propose the more well-spoken members of ArchBoston go down to her office one day and give her a proper lesson on what makes a city work.
 
Banned in Boston: the shade.
 
stellarfun said:
Ah but upholding local government zoning is not the same as the state imposing its own de facto zoning on a city or town for property(ies) in which there is no state interest. The state could find an interest in the Greenway and the Esplanade, but I doubt there is a state interest to be found at Copley, the Public Garden, or the Common (does the state own the land; has the state invested major sums in developing, maintaining the property?).
Click to expand...

Welch v. Swasey did uphold 1905 state legislation that restricted heights in Boston. The state can exercise its police power for land use regulation anywhere (within reason) in the state when it deems towns aren't doing the job themselves; the police power (in which lies the power to zone) comes from the state in the first place. In addition, it doesn't matter that this singles out particular public spaces in particular cities, that this is apparently discriminatory (eg, doesn't protect Franklin Park) as the law will probably state that protecting these places are of paricular importance to the public welfare.

Of course the height issue in 1909 wasn't about aesthetics but about property values - establishing a doctrine that property rights are a balance between individual liberty and the responsibility not to harm other properties through your use. "aesthetic zoning" wasn't accepted by the courts then. Now it is. This legislation is surely "within reason," my guess is that if passed it wouldn't even be brought to the courts.
 
Interwoven throughout the laws enacted in the late 19th century are state controls over various issues concerning Boston, though not necessarily any other municipalities. The reasoning at the time was that corruption was so much a part of the city administration that oversight was required so that Boston not sink into a completely criminal enterprise. Many of those restrictions are still in place, including various zoning regulations. There have been a number of attempts, concerning different issues over the years to disengage the city from state control. However, politicians do not give up power...ever. The irony of the whole situation is that instead of responsible government having spread from the state to the city, local corruption has taken over the state.
 
tobyjug said:
BBF,
I like a man who likes his wine! But you might want to cast Marty for the "credulous rep" role rather than as one of the old pros!
Toby
Click to expand...

Even I can't face the reality of her being that naive, plus this then casts Rep Rushing in a light that would be politicially incorrect, as noted by the "selling out" comment above.

I've always figured the Millenium project emboldened her obstructionist stance on tall construction and higher density in limited areas. Frankly, it's what got her elected. The longer this goes on, it appears she does think she's the invincible angel to save Boston from itself.

(The Millenium project was dumped for a lot of reasons, not just because of foam-at-mouth neighbors. That seems to be lost on her. I was in a meeting with her recently where she went through the list of Millenium CAC members who have moved on/died. She ended it with, "But I'm still here!" As if fighting a "battle" won many years ago is something to brag about.)

kz1000ps said:
I propose the more well-spoken members of ArchBoston go down to her office one day and give her a proper lesson on what makes a city work.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't wish that job on my sworn enemy.
 
I am so enraged. I'll try to refrain from making any comments involving the words "people and dying" although I argue that such comments would not be inappropriate.

1) We're facing the worst financial crisis in years, so let's make sure that we do just the opposite to make it better. There's 4 large projects lined up that will make the city better backed by developers that can most likely get all the financing cleared.
2) The only city I can think of that should even consider such ridiculuos shadow laws (and let's face it, the shadows in this case are analogous to weapons of mass destruction) is San Fransisco where people can actually use parks and open space all year round where the weather isn't super hot... not a city where people only gather outside HALF OF THE FUCKING YEAR. And the half-of-year that people actually gather outside is filled with rain and cloudy days so it's really like a quarter of the year at best.
3) Hmmm, how many more companies can Boston afford to lose with ridiculous proposals as this?
4) On this forum we tend to use the phrase "If you don't like living in the city, move to the suburbs" a lot. Maybe we should start saying "If you don't like living in the city, move to NY" just to make these NIMBYS and BANANAS realize just how stupid they are.
5) If the FAA came back tomorrow and said that the height of TNP was OK and Belkin magically got $1b, would Mumbles then have to tell Belkin "Sorry, but there's some new rules on the way, and you're gonna cast new shadows on PO Square. Sorry."
6) Hey BANANAS, I hope you like paying higher taxes.
 
Most BANANAS pay their taxes about as well as the current crop of cabinet appointees or otherwise are so wealthy taxes don't mean much to them.
 
Ok how do I find out who my representative is and contact him/her. I live in Allston and want my voice of opposition to be heard.
 
Before deciding whether this is a good idea or a bad one, I'd like to see a map of the area it would cover.
 
Boston man arrested for casting his shadow on the Greenway. Are these idiots for real. I might have run for State Senate.
 
Stultifying. Astonishingly stupid. Predictable.

Loved your script, Toby. Someone get the other Marty (Scorsese) on the phone.
 
Last edited:
I can understand not wanting to cast a shadow on The Commons. I can't agree with it, but it is Boston's signature park. I can't understand implementing a law or ordinance that bans shadows on any plaza or park. Are people that run the city and state that stupid? It is already a developers nightmare to get anything built in this city with all the neighborhood asses, I mean, associations that think they have the final say. It will be a sad day if this law passes. I don't think things should be built for the sake of height, but if a good projects comes around that will benefit the tax rolls, create jobs and improve the cityscape and it gets dumped because it'll create a shadow for 45 minutes in the early morning in the middle of winter, it'll just show the short sidedness of Boston's and MA's elected officials. Though, it is the state that repeatedly elects Kennedy, Frank and Kerry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top