To underground and kennedy (1): Can you give me names of projects the BRA has rejected? I've been attending their board meetings for about a decade, and I can only remember one they croaked: the Pontevecchio-style redevelopment of the Northern Avenue Bridge, a few years ago (Joe Nigro grumbled that it looked like a Mississippi steamboat; I never knew them to be thwarted by aesthetics, so I wondered what was really going on, but never found out; maybe it was to be non-union labor, that would quickly get a project tabled). Sometimes they send something back to the kitchen for a touch-up, if there is a big enough ruckus of opposition, but then they approve it next time when no one is there. But -- maybe I've been missing a large sector of BRA decision-making outside the boardroom? Let me know. What are the good projects of which the BRA has deprived us?
To pelhamhall: I don't oppose everything; I only oppose unlawful projects, and a small fraction of those -- gad, who has time to chase 'em all! (I always oppose privatization of public domain, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.) And I don't oppose them because of city corruption. I oppose them because there are reason for having laws, and the government (or the BRA, which poses as the government) shouldn't be operating a law-breaking-assistance business. Your solution, as you describe it, simply to let everything through equally indiscriminately, solves the "arbitrary and capricious" problem, by taking away any rationale for decisions. It doesn't solve the "fairness" problem, though, because the government is supposed to foster fairness by making up for the unfairnesses that tend to hinder perfect competition in the "free market," like monopoly, collusion, racism and other person-made disadvantages, etc. But mostly, it doesn't solve the problem of the public interest. Do you really think the future of this or any city is best left in the hands of real estate speculators? Is what's good for General Properties good for America? How long would it take to replace every historic building with a slim and elegant and profitable tower on land that was taxed and bought at small-building rates, plunge us into perpetual shadow, displace every low-income person, sanitize and suburbanize every public space, privatize public works, fill the place with parking garages, and generally exploit and wreck the very physical and social environment that makes this such an attractive place for development? Not long. Development is necessary, I certainly agree, but -- I think -- we need to have public policy and laws, like we need to regulate the private markets if they are to benefit rather than destroy society. That brings me back to: if we have laws, they have to be applied, and applied consistently and equitably.
Finally, to kennedy (2): I didn't set out to be the town sheriff. I'm just a landscape architect interested in city planning, and that is how I came, much to my own surprise, to be involved in suing the City, once for illegally destroying a zoning-protected historic theater (the Gaiety), and a second time for perpetuating and giving up oversight on a redevelopment authority that is in my opinion seriously harming the city and was meant to be under the control of the City Council that created it precisely because it had the extraordinary powers associated with urban renewal. I never intended or expected to spend more than the complaint filing fee and an hour at a hearing in court ten days after filing -- that's what the Open Meeting Law provides. (The public money wasted by the City on legal costs...well, that's not my fault; it could and should have been avoided.) There are indeed many other egregious wrong-doings, but no law enforcement agencies or officials or citizens have been willing to pursue them, and generally, one person cannot pursue them alone, even if that were her idea of a good time. But -- you sound like you have some particular transgressions in mind that are actually causing the city serious harm; let me know (use PM) and maybe I can be helpful.
I agree about making no small plans. I'm planning to eliminate the BRA, an imperial power of which Boston is the sole colony. I cannot figure out why, after fifty-one years of abuse, the people of Boston tolerate it -- and only the people of Boston, as no other city in America has outsourced its planning/zoning/tax-relief to a quasi-public (thus quasi-private) redevelopment authority/developers' advocate/real-estate speculator. By now, I'd think there is fairly widespread understanding of its doings, but, maybe not (even I, after 15 years, am still learning astonishing things it does, about which, again, no one who should care cares). As with the larger political structure, there may be some secondary gain for many people in maintaining a lawless and politicized/corrupt system, perhaps the hope of one day getting the right connection and being the one to benefit from an unfair advantage over other, law-abiding folks. Maybe it's a (well justified) fear of retribution. Maybe people just think this is working fine, or won't be any better under a so-called "accountable" planning/zoning department -- after all, other city governments are doing the same stupid things, and if we are to make use of the accountability, we'd have to spend time being informed and engaged and responsible citizens, and how likely is that? If site readers have thoughts on this, I'm taking a survey.
