New "Anti-Shadow" Laws Proposed for Boston

I thought it was 'certain parks' not 'any park' -- which is why I asked for a map of what it actually covers.
 
Ron, I understand your interest in doing due diligence before passing judgment. That said, the very idea of this type of legislation is absurd. Proposals like Druker's abomination on Arlington & Boylston are, in part, a result of the regulations governing development near the Public Garden.
 
Those same regulations prevented Mort Zuckerman's Park Plaza project in the 1970s -- and I think most people here consider that a good result. The Majestic theatre would have met the wrecking ball, and Emerson College would probably have gone to Lawrence after all.

I don't see how shadow regulations either facilitate or impede the Druker abomination.
 
Emerson didn't go to Lawrence because the Elks Lodge there successfully blocked the necessary land takings in court. Emerson President Alan Koenig, the chief proponent of the move, lost favor with the Trustees and "sought other opportunities. We wish him well in his new endeavors."
 
a630 said:
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.
Click to expand...
a630, thanks for the cite.

Google books has on-line Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and planning, which on p. 366, discusses aesthetic zoning.

http://books.google.com/books?id=pj...X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA367,M1

Consider me skeptical that the courts would uphold the legislature interposing its aesthetic standard when local government already has a standard and a process for considering and applying that standard, and the state has no property interest in the area(s) affected by the state standard, and also where there is neither a public welfare nor public safety concern.
 
The Shadow Law = Wasted time and money

I have completely lost faith in the incompetent state officials that we elect. They are corrupt to the bone and with all the job losses continue to pile up in Massachusetts they waste their time on the Shadow Law.

Development projects should be examined on individual basis by the site and the quality of the buildings being proposed by an independent firm that works with the developer and the neighborhood group. Politicians should be exempt at this point because they have their own personal agendas. That would save us time and money. Private money should shape our Greenway and Commons not govt officials. What is the BRA? We already have a building dept and a zoning dept. What does the BRA actually do?

Deval wants to create a gas tax. I have a better Idea why don't you cut the BRA because that would save the state millions.

God Help us.
 
So Ron you want the state & govt to shape our common? That is communism move to Russia or China.
 
Dude. The govn't has shaped Boston Common & Public Gardens for the past few hundred years. We ain't speaking Russian yet. It'll be OK.
 
TheRifleman said:
So Ron you want the state & govt to shape our common? That is communism move to Russia or China.
Click to expand...
If gov't intervention with regards to the Common is "communism" (which in itself is a stretch of the definition or at least highly expansive) then we've been "communist" dating all the way back to the Common's creation. I'm against Marty's idiotic legislation, but to call it communist obscures the real reason it's a bad idea.
 
Statler,

We continue to work everyday and get our paychecks taxed. Everything is Taxed besides the Air we breathe.
So when our govt. officials propose a project or a bill to say they want to try to better the city for example the Big Dig a budget of 200 million and we end up spending 20 Billion that is the problem with state officials. So where does that extra money come from the United States citizen. That is the reality of govt. and state proposed projects or bills. They are inept of actually trying to balance budgets or making a better way of life.

So I would actually like to see private investments shape the city at this point. Just take a look at what the colleges have done with the areas they own. Harvard = Harvard Sq, Tufts=Davis Sq, BU =Kenmore Sq. Private money usually makes better ways of life.
 
Tufts University does not own any property in Davis Square. The campus is over a half mile away.
 
Tufts has been spending a ton of money in that area and private money has made Davis Sq very HIP.
 
I think Davis Square's popularity has more to do with the public investment related to building the Red Line extension than it has to do with anything Tufts has done there. As for Kenmore Sq., what exactly are you citing that BU's succesfully accomplished there? Tearing down a successful city block and replacing it with the Disney's Hotel Commonwealth can hardly be called a success of private investment.
 
If the Red line is so successful then why is Malden Center a DUMP. They have a extension of the orange line going to the center.

That is your own personal taste but one thing is for sure the area is much safer and attracts alot of people.
 
The reason for Davis Sq success is because of TUFTS. The quality of the people that want to live in the area are educated individuals. Not because the Red Line was access to the center. It definetely helps but the main reason is because of TUFTS.
 
If Tufts is more important to the revitalization of Davis Sq than the T station, why did the Sq only revitalize itself after the station was constructed? It seems to me that if Tufts was the primary driver and not the T station, then the revitalization would have happened sometime in the decades earlier. Furthermore, if Tufts is in fact the prime driver, why would Davis need to be revitalized at all? The school's been there for how long again? Personally, I think Tufts definitly helps, but if you're looking at what makes Davis Sq successful, leaving out the T station (and the public funding that created it) would be a huge mistake.
 
Then explain Malden Center it has a ton of potential but their is no reason to live over their? The driver is Tufts, The T helps to make easy access I won't disagree their. But Tufts was growing and still needs space.
 
Not to mention the publicly-owned plaza, park, and bike paths, all of which came in the wake of the Red Line extension. But now we're way-off topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top