This article by Denise Provost was published in the Somerville News in November 2000:
Most people have definite ideas about what they do - or don't - like about a particular neighborhood, building, or development proposal. Zoning turns our ideas of what our city should be like into a set of rules that will hopefully turn the vision into reality. They are the rules about what can be built, and for what purpose, in a particular location. Zoning ordinances - local laws - address the height, bulk, placement, and uses of buildings, and such features as access, parking, signage and landscaping. The legal basis for zoning is the principle that government may reasonably regulate the use of private property to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
As in the rest of the city, the zoning for Assembly Square has changed with our evolving concept of what is appropriate development there. Once it was an area for manufacture; the two most significant parcels there are the former Ford assembly plant and H.K. Porter factory site. With the closing of the First National warehouse, Somerville created an Urban Renewal Plan for this "blighted" area. Adopted in 1979, that plan envisioned a suburban-style mall as the salvation of Assembly Square. Although the mall's developer defaulted on its mortgage in 1996, and the mall was nearly vacant by 1999, the zoning for the area, in place since 1991, is still geared to the placement of similar development.
In 1998, a group of citizens formed the Mystic View Task Force, to examine options at Assembly Square and build a public consensus for its future. Mystic View has shown that the 145-acre area could generate enormous tax revenue for Somerville. Two of the current owners want to build "big box" retail stores - Taurus Investments wants a giant Home Depot at the mall; and IKEA, a huge furniture store on the former H.K. Porter site. These would be cheap and cheapness is reflected in correspondingly low property tax revenues: an estimated gross (not net) of less than $3 million a year from the mall property and IKEA properties combined - almost 40 acres of prime real estate. For a city with an annual budget of almost $150 million a year, this is trivial revenue, with almost no potential for growth.
By contrast, Taurus last summer proposed to develop the river side of that site for a small hotel, office building, parking garage, and Borders bookstore and cafe. Although this proposal is modest in size, and suburban in scale, the projected annual gross tax revenues would be $1.4 million for 3.8 acres of Iand - roughly five times the tax revenue per acre of the "big box". Clearly, mixed use, higher buildings, and structured parking are in Somerville's economic interest. Taking this kind of mixed-use development from a suburban to an urban density makes it even more valuable to the city (see the sidebar graph comparing the proposed Assembly Square development with other nearby areas). Consideration of jobs, housing, traffic impacts, and open space show that urban mixed-use development is most advantageous for Somerville.
On August 24, I introduced an "interim"(temporary) zoning proposal for Assembly Square (ASIPD) embodying this medium density, mixed use, transit-oriented development vision. Such temporary zoning is normally put in place to preserve future options for an area under planning study. Since it will be several months before the city's 1979 Urban Renewal Plan can be amended, permanent new zoning for Assembly Square would be premature. Construction under the existing zoning, however, will likely preclude the denser, mixed-use development which almost all the involved parties claim as a goal for Assembly Square. Yet the administration responded to the ASIPD with outright hostility.
The Planning Board quickly arranged the required public hearing on the ASIPD for September 19 - Primary Day. I later discovered that it is illegal to schedule a zoning hearing for an election day. Still, the Aldermen's Chambers were packed to overflowing that night. While most of the testimony was favorable, some voiced legitimate concerns. At the end of the hearing, I announced that I would amend the ASIPD to address these concerns.
Less than 24 hours later, the Planning Board met to discuss the ASIPD. In less than ten minutes, it had voted to recommend against adoption of the zoning plan, without once referring to a single provision of the ten page document, or waiting for the amendments.
While shocked by such haste, I worked all week on the promised amendments. On September 28, a motion was made to the Board of Aldermen to take the matter out of committee and vote it down. Being able to take a hint, I subsequently withdrew both the original ASIPD and my amendments, without either having been even discussed in committee.
Why did the administration work so hard and so quickly to kill the ASIPD? One suggestion was that it would constitute a moratorium on development. I believe, however, that the amendment would have inspired rather than delayed development by removing the present uncertainties surrounding the site. What has hindered development at Assembly Square is the lack of clear direction from the city. Nor has there been a clear set of rules as to what is acceptable for Assembly Square since the Mayor asked the landowners to accept a "voluntary" moratorium. The ASIPD set down those clear rules.
I have also heard complaints that the developers interests were not considered in the ASIPD. I firmly believe that genuine public process results in a good product development which brings the city a net benefit, not a net detriment. These outcomes can be measured by tax revenues and jobs provided, as well as 'quality of life' impacts, such as attractiveness, traffic generation, and usefulness to the people of Somerville. These outcomes can be achieved in a way which treats landowners fairly and allows them a good return on their investment.
Some have suggested that the Assembly Square Planning process has been flawed by lack of participation by the affected landowners. If so, it is their own doing. Landowners and their representatives attended the Cecil Group meetings and presentations, but did not speak. They attend Mystic View Task Force meetings, which are open to the public and advertised, and there, also, they listen but do not speak. When the landowners speak, it is in private - to the Cecil Group; presumably also to the Mayor and others at City Hall. They have their place at the table, but it's a table of their own choosing, not the table where Somerville's ordinary citizens are gathered.
Perhaps that's what's wrong with the Assembly Square planning process.
copyright 2000 Denise Provost