Misinformation obscures simple conclusion on developing the site of former courthouse
The site of the former Edward J. Sullivan Courthouse deteriorates in East Cambridge. (Photo: Marc Levy)
There has been a great deal of misinformation circulating about East Cambridge’s former Edward J. Sullivan Courthouse and the city government’s role in its redevelopment. What is frustrating me about this conversation is that people have been led to believe that if the City Council just rejects leasing the parking to the developer, we will end up with affordable housing on the site. That is simply untrue. I felt it was important to set the record straight so folks can make an informed decision, rather than one based on misleading information.
1. The courthouse is owned by the state, not the city, so it is the state that decides who buys the building. The council is being asked to evaluate the transfer of parking spaces at the First Street Garage to courthouse developer Leggat McCall, not the courthouse project or any of the proposals from state Rep. Mike Connolly that would now include the most expensive public affordable housing project ever proposed in Cambridge (or anywhere in the state), community space, arts space and a public park.
2. The state Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance has indicated it will not “give” the building to the city; if Leggatt McCall walks away, the building will go back out to bid. Comparisons to deals in other cities across the state aren’t applicable in Cambridge, where the state isn’t trying to relieve blight in a downtown areas by stimulating urban revitalization.
3. As far as the claim that the city is giving public land to a private company, the city is not giving anything to anyone. The city does not own the Sullivan courthouse. The state is selling the building to Leggat McCall for more than $30 million dollars. This sale was subject to a court case (and appeal), both of which upheld the state’s authority to sell this building to a private developer. This was not the city’s doing. For folks to be suggesting it was a city decision is disingenuous at best.
4. The city is also not “giving” its parking spaces to Leggat McCall. (See No. 10 below.)
5. In a meeting I had with Connolly, he agreed that if the city was going to invest $200 million in affordable housing, the courthouse would not be the best place to invest it because the cost per unit would be double the typical $450,000 to $500,000 construction cost – that is, if the city were going to invest $200 million in affordable housing, it could get twice as many units in another location.
6. The city manager has indicated that he will not ask for an allocation to bid on this property should it become available. This means that the city is not going to get control of the building for affordable housing or anything else, because without an allocation request from the city manager, the City Council cannot allocate the money on its own.
7. If the state decided to give the building to the city, the city manager has stated that he will not accept it, in part due to the $40 million-plus it will take just to remediate the asbestos. To put that into perspective, that’s double what the city allocates each year to put into the affordable housing trust to build homes across the city. Taking on that liability would effectively offset contributions to the affordable housing fund for two years, and that is just to get the site ready for construction.
8. The building remains an eyesore on the neighborhood and is falling apart. If this process goes back out to bid, and the city is not going to buy the building, it will be sold to another for-profit developer and we will start the process all over again, leaving the building a blight on the community for another several years.
9. Although Connolly has the best of intentions and has asserted that the state and city can work together to remediate the asbestos, the state has refused to validate Connolly’s assertions and reportedly tried to contact him to correct the way he was mischaracterizing its position. The state has no intention of investing money to clean up the building, and Connolly has not been able to get any commitment for funding from the state.
10. The current proposal went through a community process that negotiated a significant community benefits package. In exchange for leasing unneeded parking spaces in the First Street Garage, the city extracted the following benefits package from the developer Leggat McCall:
$23.5 million toward affordable housing:
$2 million-plus for seniors:
$950,000 toward workforce development:
$2 million-plus for community causes and nonprofits:
$2 million-plus toward green initiatives
$4 million-plus toward retail:
Total: $34.5 million of community benefits, not including taxes, additional parking revenue and capital improvements to the First Street Garage that encompasses $4 million-plus in annual taxes; $1 million-plus in annual lease payments at the garage; and $1 million-plus in capital improvements at the garage.
That is $40.5 million dollars in community benefits to the city for leasing the parking spaces and the project.
The point is that the state has said it will not “give” the building to the city. The city has said that it doesn’t want the building even if it did. We cannot govern in a fantasy world where the state decides to forgo more than $30 million and the city decides to invest close to $200 million to remediate and renovate the building. So we are left to decide to rent the parking spaces to Leggat McCall and allow the project to go forward with the community benefits that have been negotiated or start the process all over again with another for-profit developer and let the building sit for another several years. That is the reality of the situation.
Marc McGovern is mayor of Cambridge.
The city of Cambridge has not “said that it doesn’t want the building.” It appears that the city manager, acting either by fiat or in collusion with city council, has effectively thwarted any initiative to obtain the building. Look, the “community benefits” McGovern cites are effectively a slush fund for the city council to pay out to their favored supporters at their discretion, so I can see how “mayor” McGovern is happy with that.
Cambridge needs a real, elected mayor with the capacity to pursue the public interests. The tyranny of an overpaid city manager and a council subservient to his whims must end.
Come on, Cambridge. The courthouse disposition sheds a harsh light on this city’s dysfunctional government, and the very steep costs the public endures for the sake of private gain.
We need a real mayor. Let’s change the charter. Maybe Connolly should run for mayor under a revised city charter and show McGovern how to serve the public interest instead of playing lackey to the city manager.
It is disturbing to see that the mayor has not done his homework at all. Despite all of the information available to him, including the City’s own parking “study”, he prefers alternative facts that bear no relation to reality. I’ll address just a few of his misstatements.
1. We are not arguing about the Courthouse. The people in East Cambridge who bring up the Courthouse are generally people who say we have to lease these parking spaces because of what the Commonwealth has and hasn’t done with its own property. The parking spaces are property of the City of Cambridge. The Courthouse is not. The Commonwealth has let its property fall apart, to the detriment of Cambridge residents in my neighborhood, and the City has done absolutely nothing to advocate for them. On the other hand, the City has done plenty of advocating for a billion-dollar corporation and seems far more concerned for its welfare than ours.
2. Anyone who claims that the parking spaces the City proposes to lease to Leggat McCall are unused has been paying absolutely no attention for the past several years. Residents have compiled figures from the City’s own data that show usage rising inexorably since the courthouse has been vacant. They have taken videos of the garage during the day that show that it is full or nearly full most work days. East Cambridge residents who have parking passes complain that there are often no spaces for them to park in, even though they dutifully pay the monthly fee for their passes. But you don’t have to believe us. At the direction of the City Council, the City commissioned a parking study, which was issued on June 14 and then reissued on June 27 because an East Cambridge resident actually read it and noticed that the weekdays the consultants said they collected parking data were actually Saturdays. The study is full of other blatant misinformation (e.g., alleged public parking lots that aren’t), but, despite all of that, it concludes that there are NOT ENOUGH PARKING SPACES in the garage to lease 420 of them to LMP. It says there will regularly be dozens of people turned away because the garage will be full. And that’s before the CambridgeSide Mall demolishes its 795-space above-ground garage, just for starters. So, anyone who says there are enough unused parking spaces is making things up.
3. Does LMP actually need these spaces? Several people have said we should be planning for our future and not encouraging people to drive to a site between Lechmere and Kendall Square stations. People who usually spout the latest LMP propaganda are suggesting that LMP doesn’t need the garage spaces. Hot dog! Shouldn’t we be finding out the answer to this question before we make such a momentous decision that will create real problems for our friends, neighbors and co-workers? Why does every other developer in Kendall Square, NorthPoint and the rest of East Cambridge have to solve its own parking problems, but Leggat McCall gets to cut in line ahead of people who’ve been on a wait list for garage parking passes for years and displace dozens and dozens of people so it can make more money? Apparently corporate welfare is alive and well in Our Fair City.
There’s a ton more to say about this issue, but this will have to do for now. Look at the multiple letters that the East Cambridge Planning Team, the Cambridge Residents Alliance, Abra Berkowitz and others have submitted to the Planning Board and ask yourselves who’s dealing with real facts and who’s fearmongering and spreading alternative facts.
Heather,
My letter was not about the parking because Rep. Connolly, Cambridge Res. Alliance and others have been making this an affordable housing issue. Other than some letters from a handful of East Cambridge residents about the parking, every email I have received has made some claim as “Don’t lease the parking so we can get affordable housing”. You’re right. This should be about the parking and I’m happy to have that discussion but my letter was addressing the misinformation that is being put out there that suggests that if we deny the parking we will end up with affordable housing.
Marc, I’ll believe you when you stop claiming these parking spaces are unused, even though the City’s own parking “study”, flawed as it is, soundly refutes that. They’re used, a lot, by people who currently live and work in East Cambridge and patronize our local businesses and other attractions. Why is there a wait list if there are so many spaces available for Leggat McCall? Why do they get to cut in line? Do they even need these spaces at all?
Correct your blatant misinformation, work with the facts, and then we can all talk civilly and knowledgeably about what should be happening with public property in my neighborhood. That’s what the disposition process was created to do, not the embarrassing sham we’ve been subjected to. I’ve seen you be better than this. On something this big, you can and should bring your best self, not your worst. That would validate the vote of confidence of your colleagues to make you mayor, a choice that many of us hoped would benefit from your training and skills.
Heather, I rarely agree with you…but in total agreement on this and a lot of other people are as well. Thanks for speaking your voice as you always do!
Marc, many of us have day jobs and can’t easily attend city hall meetings. We support you.