tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11031470.post7490481359213774783..comments2023-12-09T03:40:55.044-05:00Comments on Allston Brighton Community Blog: Beacon Hill Times details the Suffolk-Beacon Hill agreementHarry Mattisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16538583371784475876noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11031470.post-40151194000587908672008-06-13T19:08:00.000-04:002008-06-13T19:08:00.000-04:00Harry,That's certainly quite fair. I guess I just...Harry,<BR/><BR/>That's certainly quite fair. I guess I just worry that we should put more emphasis on that kind of thing, because it seems like sometimes the relationship is so adversarial, with neighbors preferring no growth at all or attempting to excise a pound of flesh in exchange for it, that the universities (having previously sat in some of these meetings at BC when I was a student there) see acting like a thief in the night as their only option.<BR/><BR/>Now I'm not defending that as honorable, but I guess I think we need to make really sure that what we're asking for from the schools is fairly directly related to their adverse impacts (empty buildings, traffic, student behavior) and not just "well you want to build in our neighborhood--what will you give us in exchange?" as if existing owners had veto right over new ones or something.<BR/><BR/>I'm also not totally clear on the tax soreness--I mean, it's true that universities generally pay only 1/3 or so in PILOT what they would pay in property taxes, and some of them are of course quite rich, but (a) these deals are often made for private companies looking to bring in jobs as well (b) the schools pay a lot of things directly that ordinary residents do not, like policing and such, and (c) they spend a fair amount (though perhaps not as much as would be ideal) on local school partnerships, ABCD, etc.<BR/><BR/>Sorry that was a bit long winded, but I do worry that sometimes your blog sounds as if the schools should make concessions in exchange for growth per se, rather than just offsetting particular adverse impacts.Ryan Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05175625979264185229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11031470.post-66786519548035082842008-06-13T09:16:00.000-04:002008-06-13T09:16:00.000-04:00Hi Ryan,I'm not clear either about if this agreeme...Hi Ryan,<BR/><BR/>I'm not clear either about if this agreement is, on the whole, good or bad. I posted it because I think that as we deal with universities in A/B and their expansions it helps for us to be educated about what is happening elsewhere, regardless of to what extent we might want or not want to follow their example.<BR/><BR/>With both Harvard and BC there is no realistic (or desirable) no-growth option. The question is how the benefit and impact of the growth will be shared.<BR/><BR/>HarryHarry Mattisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538583371784475876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11031470.post-73945837944093861892008-06-13T08:59:00.000-04:002008-06-13T08:59:00.000-04:00I guess I'm not clear on why this leaves the city ...I guess I'm not clear on why this leaves the city or neighborhoods as a whole better off, rather than a couple of abutters who own expensive property in Beacon Hill. I can perhaps see the reason to restrict building in certain areas, but why are classrooms on Temple St that already exist so evil? Why should we restrict the growth of Suffolk or any of the other universities in Boston that make this town so special? Why should the neigborhood need to be bought off to support a theatre?<BR/><BR/>I guess despite my libertarian leanings I can see a lot of the motivation behind smart-growth ideas, but so often it seems like the real preference of some of these neighborhoods is no-growth, which seems like a very counter-egalitarian dedication to the property values of wealthy people.Ryan Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05175625979264185229noreply@blogger.com