Letter: Connolly shows leadership on MIT’s Kendall plan
As expected, the city council voted to approve the Massachusetts Institute of Technology proposal to add nearly 1 million square feet of commercial office space to the grounds of the institute’s East Campus by Kendall Square. The zoning change clears the way for MIT to build large, corporate office towers on a tract of land that had previously been earmarked for future research and academic needs.
For all the jobs, taxes and benefits that will be created by this new construction, the fact remains that the MIT plan comes up short in two areas of great concern to all Cantabrigians: housing and sustainability.
Over the past few months, through a series of public statements, only one presumptive City Council candidate has consistently raised awareness about the two major flaws in this massive upzoning deal. That candidate is Mike Connolly.
In February, Connolly published a 1,600 word essay that called on MIT to provide housing to the thousands of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who are currently being forced into market-rate apartments in the neighborhoods that surround the campus.
Connolly argued that MIT’s focus on real estate income is creating a hardship for students while simultaneously driving up rents and making it more difficult for families to remain in our city. A few weeks after Connolly’s essay was published, former Massachusetts secretary of transportation and current MIT professor Fred Salvucci essentially affirmed Connolly’s main point.
Unfortunately, the council failed to seize our city’s unique moment of leverage by demanding that MIT do something significant on the graduate student housing issue.
At a time when MIT was asking the city to confer hundreds of millions of dollars in added value to its real estate portfolio, most councillors rejected the notion that the city could ask MIT for additional housing – or demand action on another one of the causes that Connolly has championed, a net-zero energy impact standard for new construction.
I have come to know Mike Connolly as someone with the courage to speak truth to power in the middle of a debate – when it really matters. This is just one of the many reasons why I look forward to volunteering on his campaign for City Council.
David Mattei
I find this all rather suspect. I appreciate that you’re active and want to help solicit for a candidate you believe in, but I find you’re faith is Mike to somewhat suspect.
1) First lets talk about “housing” and “sustainability.” The latter is thrown around so much in this city I feel it really doesn’t have much punch anymore, so its difficult, as one who has followed the MIT petition very closely, to parse what you actually mean by that. Especially considering that the MIT petition fosters the innovation growth in a sector of the city that has become a nationally recognized patent hub. Also that the tax revenue from building commercial will help “sustain” the enormous benefits citizens/homeowner citizens receive in Cambridge.
Mike, adopting the language of who he believes to be his constituency, offered only the voice of “No.” We already have Craig Kelley, so a “No” vote doesn’t really do it for me. Further, the former point of housing also was vague and without rational sentiment. If we build all housing, and no commercial, would we then eliminate that from the tax base and force grad students to take up housing in the Kendall campus? He offer vagaries and what I believe to be a charlatan’s sense of “OCCUPY” to a debate that needs reason/compromise/and someone who has lived in this city for more than a second.
2) Now lets talk about housing. Mike’s 1600 word “published” essay cited factoids and from my vantage a rather sophomoric understanding of the real estate market. There are several trends currently contributing to the high price of housing that have nothing to do with MIT. MIT who currently houses close to 50% of their grad students. So again Mike says “No” but doesn’t offer anything in its substitute. He says “No” in North Cambridge but offers no compromise and insults the current council members. Does he know who he’d be working with if, God forbid, he should be elected?
Lastly, Mike Connolly has “championed” nothing but Mike Connolly. He is the guy who walks into the middle of a movie and asks everyone around him “what going on” and then professes to know the ending. MIT has been a strong partner and huge contributor to all of Cambridge. We should be extending our hand to with with, not against. From what I’ve seen Mike has shown up, and with little more than the mantra of the CRA or Area IV coalition offered nothing but a brick wall.
I think this city could do much better in just about any other candidate. We need a council that can work together, with reason, and not some “occupy” opportunist that seeks to pander to those that would keep this city forever frozen in amber.
So its great that you’re involved. I just think you could have picked a better candidate.
I am not sure of the leadership style of Mr. Connolly. He appeared on the Cambridge scene during the November election in which he unsuccessfully challenged Rep. Toomey. During that campaign he attacked Rep. Toomey on several fronts while appearing to campaign on the occupy theme. He is best remembered for his awkward comparison with Rosa Parks when he called her courageous stand on the bus a “gimmick” garnering national press.
Now he has moved to run for City Council and again appears to be campaigning in the occupy mode, only this time with an anti-growth, anti-development, anti-success just about anti-everything. That is okay, but it is not what I am looking for in a candidate or city leader.
As for the Recently ordained MIT petition, Mr. Connolly was not alone in his opposition to the petition. There was a well orchestrated effort to kill the petition. Not that doing so would have yielded the goals to which Mr. Connolly has attached himself, but what the heck let’s just say no anyway. Again, I did not agree with Mr. Connolly but I appreciate, generally, the zeal and passion that he displayed in his opposition to the petition. What I did not appreciate was witnessing how he, and many others in the opposition camp, vilified those who supported the petition. This included personal attacks against individuals associated with the plan. Again, he is free to do that, but not what I want in a leader.
So maybe he showed a form of leadership, but its not that which neither I nor I hope my fellow residents of Cambridge want .
What’s with the Rosa Park’s slander again? Is this the best you’ve got against Connolly — your misrepresentation of his thoughtful comments? Are you trying to gimmick google’s page rank (did you get my use of “gimmick”?)?
patrickbarrett, you’re a greedy developer, we get it. And you do correctly recognize that Mike Connolly has been bold enough to challenge the self-interested assertions of you and your class. And feel free to disparage me as a class warrior.
patrickbarret, the facts are not so much on your side as they are twisted in your hands to support your self-interested opinion. Preening elaborations of your economic theories and real estate sophistry don’t change that.
Your ad hominem attacks on considerate voices in support of the public interest have a chilling effect on public participation. You’re a bully, basically. Also, you appear to believe that wealth gives you some particular virtue and insight, which appears to be a common conception (is Donald Trump rich?)
Leave Rosa in peace. If you want to be greedy, stop invoking her name to attack those whose efforts are, in my opinion, rather aligned with her struggles.
I guess I say the same to JohnM, except the greedy developer parts may not apply.
Mr/Mrs/Ms. Roots,
Lets get right to it:
In my arguments against his candidacy I have always approached Mike on the facts. There is no personal attack, though I did find his Rosa Parks comment a very striking “foot in mouth” moment. I doubt Mike would disagree. So I don’t think we can say I “invoked” anything, as much as I am merely reflecting on that moment when Mike inserted foot in mouth and went on to awkwardly justify it. I agree, though, this is a non-issue with a candidate who fails in so many places its easy to simply move on, and move on I shall. However, and I really have to know, in what way are Connolly’s and Parks struggles “aligned”?
1) I find his policies bereft of logic, and his reliance on slanted factoids suspect. However, what has Mike Connolly ever done for Cambridge and its communities? Please identify something other than his desire to get elected.
There is no ad hominem. Mike wants to get elected so he, like many Cambridge politicians, reaches out to a base whom he thinks he can draw that magic 800+ #1 votes needed, sadly, to get elected in this city. Unfortunately for Cambridge Mike has chosen the entrenched, NIMBY, and closet conservative vote as his base. He petitions development without a path of compromise; so you call him “bold”. He insults the legal process the city engages in and thinks it “ok” let alone within the confines of the law to extort the institutions that fuel our tax base; to which you suggest he’s “challenged” the establishment. Is that criticism a personal attack on him or an attack on what his policies are?
2) The fact that you don’t know me aside; your “chilling” effect argument is nonsense. If you want to laud a candidate, do it based on the facts. If you feel “bullied” by me, call me on it. We are all adults here, simply state that I went too far, and explain why. If you’re afraid of me, just call Robert Winters, Bob Simha, or Jonathan King; those guys are pretty good at shutting me up. Please, stop trying to sell me and my fellow Cantabridians some nonsense about how Mike is “bold” or has “challenged” anything but his own self interest. He hasn’t he hasn’t even done so much as pick up a piece of trash off the streets of Central Square let alone done anything to help his supposed cause against development.
In a Mike Connolly shaped Cambridge, development doesn’t stop. The institutions simply do what they can by right. There is no community benefit, there is no housing, no parks, no art installations, daycare centers, no cash handed to the redevelopment authority for low income developments. None of that exists in a Connolly shaped universe. So when Mike pontificates at city hall touting the need for graduate housing or that North Cambridge aught to remain untouched, the result isn’t going to be something that anyone wants, but you can be damn well sure the developers aren’t going to lose. I wonder if you, or Mike even realize that; meaning has it ever even occurred to you. So please spare me the champion of the people narrative. It simply isn’t so.
3) The “greedy developer” part I like. We should keep it. Obviously you know who I am so its fair to judge me, and judge you have. I, however, don’t know you, so maybe we should fix that? Coffee? Tea? I’m rich so you know I’m buying. One thing that I will say though, for all my greed and posturing I do understand the real estate market. Ask anyone… literally… go ask anyone right now. My knowledge and willingness to put myself out there, along with certain amendments to our constitution, alone give me the virtue and insight to speak my mind. If you had that cup of coffee with me you’d know that. Wealth and land ownership, and your clear admonition of it, doesn’t bestow upon me anything other than responsibility.
I see nothing in your argument other than an eye for an eye attempt to derail what I have clearly said time and time again; Mike isn’t good for Cambridge. Prove me wrong. Show me, don’t tell me. I have to say I find your characterization of me to be the most telling of who you probably are. I hear entitlement in your shots fired; I hear the lazy call of a person who thinks the world owes him/her something. So instead of getting your hands dirty you point to me and cry greed. You don’t know me at all and I wonder if it is even possible for someone so willing to judge could ever even fathom a person like myself. Not that I am anything special, I’m not, but that you’d equate landownership with wealth and then conclude greed, avarice, or worse; a willingness to ransack one’s village for just a bit more. That’s pretty bold my friend, too bold, and you’re dead wrong.
That being said I hope you take me up on the offer Mr/Mrs Roots I can be reached anytime usually walking around central when I’m not in school, or at Toscaninis every day around 8 a.m. with my black cape, burlap money sack, twisting my mustache, working to make the world a more horrible place to be. ; )
Such an interesting juxtaposition in this last comment. On the one hand, we shouldn’t ask for anything from developers because that would be extortion. On the other hand, if we don’t give in to the unending requests for upzoning, “[t]here is no community benefit, there is no housing, no parks, no art installations, daycare centers, no cash handed to the redevelopment authority for low income developments.” Apparently there’s just nothing in it for us if people simply build under current zoning. After all, people who bought property at a price that reflected the existing zoning shouldn’t be required to live with that decision, nor should they be asked to pay for the costs their wants impose on the rest of us.
Perhaps this leads to the conclusion that we should downzone the entire city to open space and then put up a “Zoning For Sale” sign at city hall. That way anything anyone wants to build, no matter how large or how small, will bring us these marvelous benefits which will somehow not be extortion. I guess none of them are attractive enough for the market to supply them without some kind of giveaway. Current zoning, even though you have pronounced it our master plan in previous comments, must not bear any relation to what we have thought we wanted our city to look like.
By the way, the redevelopment authority has nothing to do with low-income housing, and I think most people who consider themselves conservative, whether closeted or otherwise, would be surprised to find out that they’re reflexively anti-development NIMBYs.
Hey Heather,
1) There is no black and white discussion here. I implied that we shouldn’t work with developers to get what we need/want. The point I was trying to make was that we shouldn’t make the request absolutely ridiculous or based on fantasy. Predicating a zoning change based on something no reasonably or directly related to that change is iffy … to say the least. To say that there is “nothing in it” is ridiculous and I can’t believe you even took yourself seriously when you wrote that.
Further, they SHOULD be asked to pay the cost of the extra demand put on infrastructure, traffic, parking, electrical, water and sewer, at least to the extent that such excess demand is placed. However, suggesting that MIT should build 5000 units of housing and then force all grad student to live there is nonsense…and not worth mentioning again.
2) Zoning is and has been since the inception of the concept, ever changing. Its a police power derived from the state so that our cities can manage land use for the health and welfare of all. Obviously that is up to some interpretation which is why in most zoning issue the city always have the presumption of validity. You of all people should know this. And while you fight small developers based on nuanced zoning irregularities fit for a law school hypothetical the city opts to avoid such theatre and simply change the zoning to conform to need. So you get standing by way of one less parking spot and the city gets the benefit of the “fairly debatable” standard. From my vantage point it all looks fairly Yin and Yang.
No who buys land has any presumption that the zoning will remain stagnant. This is the gamble anyone who buys real estate simply accepts. Why should they be held to the fire when the change is favorable? 9 out of 10 times any zoning change in this city has hurt developers and really anyone who owns a parcel of land outside of the A and B zones. Your “zoning for sale” bit is laughable, again I can’t believe that you really believe this.
3) That is the problem with inflexible people and zoning. You think to yourself, “well thats the law you can’t build more than what the law tells you.” For people like you these will be difficult times, because zoning exists through our will to exercise it. It is no etched in any rock, it is flexible, malleable, and put in place to serve as a police measure only.
“Current zoning, even though you have pronounced it our master plan in previous comments, must not bear any relation to what we have thought we wanted our city to look like.”
I love this sentence. 1) You acknowledge the existence of a master plan; and 2)I’d really like to know who the “we” is in that sentence. It sure as hell isn’t me.
4) Oops. Good catch Heather I think I meant Housing Trust, though its difficult to say when I go a ranting. Its exam season too so I’m extra lippy. I don’t see where conservatism and anti-development aren’t compatible. Maybe it just sounds strange to you, but its a perfectly natural conservative reflex to oppose change. This may stem from NIMBY-ist sentiment or it may not, however on its face one really can’t distinguish between the two.
5) Lastly, again I see only puff and no substance. What do you want madam? Should we have the ordinance bronzed and call it a day? What does this mean for the average home buyer? Should they not seek relief when they need to? Should we just say, “well you bought it, tough luck pal!” Fortunately in the real world the answer is “no.” Ciao!
Patrick, I question whether we even speak the same language. You don’t get sarcasm, just for starters. Nor can you even tell when I’m saying what I believe as opposed to what I think you believe. Try reading what I wrote again. Maybe then you can write a comment that bears some relation to what I actually wrote.
Sarcasm is lost in the electronic medium, though it is nice to know that you don’t mean a word of what you said. Which of course begs the question: What is your point? If you wish to elaborate in a medium why sarcasm has more impact I can be found at Toscanini’s every morning from 8-9am until I die. Ciao!
Patrick,
I was actually told “Well, you bought it, tough luck” by a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals on application for a variance, so it does happen to the average home buyer. If you have money or connections, the outcome tends to be better.
And that is the trend in Cambridge Zoning Law now. In the final Ordinance Committee meeting on MIT PUD-5, the City Manager gave the Councillors a simple sheet of 6 lines. The bottom line was $10,524,990, the yearly tax payment when the parcel is 100% developed.
It certainly simplified any complex discussion of open space, building massing, housing, sunlight, innovation space, sustainability, and “liveable streets”. The Zoning that passed did address these areas, but to a low standard, in my opinion. MIT can still build to a higher standard, but that remains to be seen.
Thanks for your office hours, when are exams over? I want to ask you how, under the current horrible Central Square zoning, you have managed to make any money on your properties? I know it sounds like a sarcastic, but it’s mostly serious.
Tom Stohlman
Candidate for City Council
Mr. Barrett, maybe you could try exercising those skills you’re supposed to be learning in law school and respond to what I wrote rather than what you imagine I wrote.
Hey Tom,
First off I’m glad you joined the conversation.
1) Yes, I can see how one would think that there is an inequity among landowners in this city. While large institutions like MIT can push an entire rezoning of an area small guys like myself and really any homeowner in Cambridge are left to fend for ourselves, constrained by the inflexibility that filing for a variance entails. I have faced this time and time again, in fact its the reason why I decided to go to law school.
.
.
Right now as I type I have a water fountain in my living room. I was forced to install it because of what I would categorize as a misinterpretation of the non-conforming use section of the ordinance and a complete misunderstanding of what a “variance” is. However I was new to the city so installed it and now have a lovely conversation piece (though in about a week I plan to remove it to make room for my son’s crib).
.
.
Large institutions will not be able to pass legal muster under the current guidelines required for a variance. Thus, the city has to rezone, but you probably know this already. The rub is that for us small time property owners we don’t own enough land to justify a rezone and thus we are funneled into the variance process where the watermark for a recognized hardship is virtually impossible to achieve.
.
.
Now compound the issue with neighbor protest. As our friend Heather knows, the standard for being granted standing in a dispute over a variance or special permit in this state is extremely low. The courts have deemed that one has standing even if one off street parking spot is effected by a proposed development. So, if I am granted a variance because the project might be a good one and the ZBA/Planning Board wishes to see it through, Heather can simply show up, protest, and under the Ma. standard, succeed in her challenge because there in no recognizable hardship.
.
.
Inspectional services knows this. They anticipate it and thus you get responses like the one you got. It seems ironic and almost counter intuitive but when it comes to developing your own property in this town we are our worst enemy.
.
.
I bought a place in Central last year that my wife and I would like to raise our family in. I will be going before the zba sometime next year, and I guarantee that my proposed .04 above the current FAR allowance in a BA-3 zone will be shot down because of people like Heather, who simply want to throw a wrench in the machine because they think it cute or worthy activism.
.
.
I would argue that we need to lessen the standards of review for minor local residential projects. Raise the FAR to 1 across the city to allow for reasonable builds. We have other stop gaps to protect things like open space, necessary setbacks, and parking. However I’d have to contend with Steven Kaiser who would have me strung up by Article 7 for advocating something that would be to my benefit. I’d also have to deal with people like Heather who simply find it fun to developers from building.
.
.
2) I finished both my exams yesterday. I don’t recommend taking two in the same day if you’re in the market for a legal exam. My office is always open. However I wouldn’t say that the current zoning in Central is “horrible” I just think it needs to be revised. A FAR of 4, maybe 5, with TDR, and the inclusionary provisions of or ordinance would probably work very well to encourage home building.
.
.
However, I am doing quite well. Though I bought in the early 2000’s the market in Cambridge is soaring, much more so than I’ve seen advertised. The irony here is that people like Heather, The CRA, Area IV coalition, and the People’s Popular Front of Judea have been so adamant about downzoning Central (which they in some form or another have already done 3 times!!!) have made me more popular than U.S. Steel. I doesn’t hurt that I am a fair landlord, and from what I’ve gotten from tenant feedback; the best deal in town. I really should be advocating for less housing in Central Square and the surrounding areas, as the current “no build” agenda in this town has created a whirlwind of pent up demand.
.
.
However I’m also not here just to make money. I genuinely love this town and believe that I can make money, be responsible, and allow room for creative vision. Its actually more than a belief because its my business model and it works!
.
.
I recently spent the past year teaching up at CRLS and I have to say I’m really impressed with the young folks going through the system here. I’d think we’d want to try to create a Cambridge where they could reasonably expect to at least have a chance to buy something in this town. While the afore mentioned groups pine over the loss of rent control they miss an opportunity to create a situation where everyone can win instead of the popular shift of financial burden on those that foot the bill.
.
.
.
Ok Heather now its your turn…
.
.
I though I did address you in my response, but I will now go line by line and lets see if we can’t hash this out.
.
.
1) “Such an interesting juxtaposition in this last comment. On the one hand, we shouldn’t ask for anything from developers because that would be extortion.”
.
.
That is not what I said at all. I was merely suggesting that what we ask for should be reasonable, attainable, and related to what is being asked for.
.
.
2)”On the other hand, if we don’t give in to the unending requests for upzoning, “[t]here is no community benefit, there is no housing, no parks, no art installations, daycare centers, no cash handed to the redevelopment authority for low income developments.””
.
.
This is a mischaracterization of what I said. I was suggesting that No $$$’s remarks that MIT should be required to accommodate 5000 graduate students is unreasonable and further that it was unlikely that even if said units (micro or otherwise) were built that it is guarantee that those students would even migrate to them. I based this on what I gage it would cost to build said housing, the lack of tax incentive for the city to allow such housing given that the square footage required would be well over what is currently proposed. If we stand absolute stances on issues like this and do not allow for some reasonable negotiation then these developers can still build what they want on a smaller scale and we get nothing in return. In my opinion its shooting yourself in the foot to spite your hand.
.
.
3) “Apparently there’s just nothing in it for us if people simply build under current zoning.”
.
.
Is that sarcasm or not…seriously I don’t know. However I think I’ve addressed this point already. I think the ordinance needs an overhaul or at least we need to identify some areas where the world has changed and we need to adapt.
.
.
4)”After all, people who bought property at a price that reflected the existing zoning shouldn’t be required to live with that decision, nor should they be asked to pay for the costs their wants impose on the rest of us.”
.
.
Well you have made it a personal crusade to see that they do right? I guess with neighbors like you who needs a zoning hearing. Zoning exists because we wish it to, it is amendable, flexible, and should be revised every 20years.
.
.
5) “Perhaps this leads to the conclusion that we should downzone the entire city to open space and then put up a “Zoning For Sale” sign at city hall.”
.
.
I do not see how you could have reached that conclusion based on your prior sentence, and I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that I disagree.
.
.
6)”I guess none of them are attractive enough for the market to supply them without some kind of giveaway.”
.
.
I would not characterize any of what the city council has negotiated an outright “giveaway.” However I would say that they could use a crash course in real estate negotiation, but its easy to sideline quarterback their every move. Right?
.
.
7) “Current zoning, even though you have pronounced it our master plan in previous comments, must not bear any relation to what we have thought we wanted our city to look like.”
.
.
It is our Master Plan, but it could use revision. So in a sense I think it reflected what the city should have looked like when last it was fully amended. My copy says, “ordained 2009” but it reflects item that have been in place for way too long. Again though I don’t know who this “we” is that you speak of, because I think we need to take another look.
.
.
8) “By the way, the redevelopment authority has nothing to do with low-income housing, and I think most people who consider themselves conservative, whether closeted or otherwise, would be surprised to find out that they’re reflexively anti-development NIMBYs”
.
.
I’ve already conceded my clerical error here. However I will say that this city needs to wrangle in all of these “non-profit” developer rampantly clustering low income housing in Area IV, Cambridge Port, and East Cambridge. In my opinion its absolutely criminal. Further, that the council hasn’t been able to even calculate how many housing projects are being built, where, and in what neighborhoods simply because the housing authority won’t tell them is scary. I can tell you that clustering low income enclaves will take its toll on this city for generations to come. Its classist, racist, and not befitting a community that lauds itself as diverse and eclectic. As for the NIMBY piece; I oft heard those in opposition to “up-zoing” (I use parentheticals because as we all should know, when something has been down zoned several times, a return to what once was shouldn’t really be characterized as an “up-zone”)… those in opposition often say “not on my watch” or equally drastic. They oppose development because its not what THEY want, taking no consideration for how this city is finance and what said development will provide for future generations. They want housing, they want cheap stores, but they don’t want to pay for it, and they don’t want it near where they live. Isn’t that what being NIMBY is all about?
.
.
Conclusion:
Well I think that about sums it all up. Though I think we should all apologize to Dave Mattei, myself especially. This was supposed to be a discussion about No $$$’s viability as a candidate or at least how super he is. Sorry Dave, your next Toscanini’s ice cream is on me!
Patrick, I stand by my characterization of what you actually wrote, as opposed to what you want to claim you wrote. People can read it and come to their own conclusions.
You obviously know nothing of what I’ve advocated in the past. Ask the Planning Board and the BZA if I oppose everything. Ask Jim Rafferty. They’ll tell you that I show up to support some things and oppose others.
You’ve misstated my own case. I had testified in support of one variance requested for this property. However, many of my neighbors were unhappy about the new buildings that I had not supported and complained loudly about them. When I realized that there were serious zoning violations and pointed them out to then-Commissioner Bersani, he ordered the two illegal buildings torn down. That ruling was upheld by the BZA and by the courts. Seeing that he was going to lose, the developer applied for a retroactive variance, and, among other things, the application was so defective that he had to redo it completely. Unlike its current practice, the BZA accepted this new application without allowing any public comment. In fact, the public had no opportunity to review it because it was filed at 4:00 on the day of the hearing. Lots of people besides me showed up meeting after meeting as the developer requested continuance after continuance. The “hardship” cited in the variance decision was so ludicrous that the Appeals Court actually mocked it in their decision.
To suggest that I have spent this much time and money just to be a jerk is unworthy of you, and I expect an apology. I have always assumed that you believe what you write, and I have never impugned your motives. You owe me the same courtesy, or I expect chapter and verse proving that I am not sincere in what I’ve been saying and doing for the past several years.
Heather,
What I “actually wrote” is all up there I really don’t know how at this point you can still have an issue. I’m not going to retort with the snark you’ve tossed at me, but if what I’ve written isn’t clear I don’t think the problem is on my end at this juncture.
.
.
I think you and I differ on what constitutes a “serious zoning violation” and I am familiar with the facts of Hoffman v. Cambridge ZBA. I will say that this may be a poor example as the developer in this issue oft brings trouble upon himself.
.
.
As to hardship, you should know, that legally there is no hardship one could state that reasonably satisfies the terms required in the variance process. In the case I mentioned they tried and they failed. That an appellate judge scoffed at a lower court decision is not news. The variance process is a harsh and ridged remedy. One that really ought to be reviewed and perhaps amended. I like the way New York handles area variances, to me it makes more sense.
.
.
I will not offer any apology, at least not electronically. I’m not sure I’d use the word “jerk” to describe your behavior, but I would suggest that you’ve got a lot of free time on your hands and seem willing to spend other people’s money with little regard and I’m not talking about evil developers, but the city’s. The Hurley St. thing was probably too personal, and if he were building in my neighborhood I’d probably protest too. That being said I don’t see you advocate for much more than the desire to keep Cambridge frozen in amber. I think at the most basic level we disagree about what zoning is designed to do.
.
.
I have a project coming up this summer that will hit the zba sometime in the fall. I’ll be looking for a variance to allow me to go over FAR by .04 to add attic space. My hardship? The soil on my property is silt like and I have no basement. If I dug it out I’d destabilize the foundation and it would cost a small fortune. Will I prevail? I’m guessing no, but it won’t be because the ZBA won’t want to give me the relief it’ll be because they’ll be afraid to for fear of litigation. Caveat Emptor. Right? Nonsense.
.
.
I’m not saying don’t fight the good fight, I’m just suggesting that as far as Kendall is concerned you guys are over reaching. Lastly, of course I believe what I write, why else would I take the time out to chime in? My main goal was to add voice to what I believe to be the silent majority in this city that has had it with unreasonable people speaking on their behalf.
So what was the zoning violation that you don’t consider serious? After all, it was serious enough for ISD to issue a teardown order. So, tell me what you think it was.
As to your fear and trepidation over a tiny FAR overage, I don’t know if you’ve made such a great impression on your neighbors that they’ll all turn out to oppose you or support you or just ignore the whole thing, nor whether your plans are good ones or bad ones, but I have in fact shown up to support neighbors who have asked for things like that. I repeat, you don’t know the first thing about what I’ve done, and I’m tired of your making stuff up. So, while you’re at the BZA, ask the longer serving members whether they consider me someone who always opposes everything or not.
And, if you think that there are no hardships that actually qualify under the law, then you really don’t know anything about zoning.