WATERTOWN IS A SMALL CITY WITH A TOWNISH VIBE. SHOULD WE KEEP IT OR KILL IT?

 Broder, the new owner of the former Cannistraro property in West Watertown, delivered a two-part message for the residents of Watertown. First, they are not your run-of-the-mill hit-and-run developer. And second, Watertown, for them, is more than just another city with a sexy hunk of developable land. This Boston-based, Newbury Street company feels a special connection to Watertown.

That message came across loud and clear at the March 20 meeting, at City Hall, but I can’t quite remember what that connection is. Well, it doesn’t really matter. The $47 million they paid for the property bought them a lot of connection.

So, who exactly are they?

They tell us, in a few paragraphs, on their website. I’ve taken the liberty of breaking out the sentences from the paragraphs to better highlight the bumper sticker messages they contain.

Here they are, one bumper sticker at a time:

“Broder invests in, develops, and manages commercial, residential, and hospitality properties.”

“We are inspired by great design.”

“Style that transcends trend.” (I have no idea what this means but I’m going to start using it at cocktail parties)

“Enduring quality.” (so  much better than unenduring quality)

“Services and amenities that elevate everyday living.”

“We believe these things create lasting value.”

“We strive to respect people and the planet by building sustainably.”

“We strive to respect the communities we work in by engaging in conversations with the residents and elected officials who know them best.”

“Our mission is to contribute to the evolution of stronger, healthier, more dynamic neighborhoods.”

That last message on the list is important. How exactly will they set about this mission to contribute to the evolution of a stronger, healthier, more dynamic neighborhood in the immediate vicinity of their development?

Oh, and what if that neighborhood, in which they are taking up residence, does not wish to be dynamic, but simply happy and intact?

 Well before the March 20 community meeting, Broder gave us a written bird’s eye view of how they plan on contributing to the mental and physical well-being of the community – and while they did not define community, I assume they mean the community of Watertown and especially the local community that their project will impact the most.

Here’s what they told us:

(I put the sexy parts in bold)

“The campus has been designed to actively invite residents to enjoy thoughtfully landscaped publicly accessible green space, bicycle paths, and pedestrian connections, all proximate to the Charles River Greenway.”

“The project will contribute high-quality public retail and open green spaces that bring people and families together, as well as landscaped connections to the surrounding neighborhoods, Charles River Greenway, and improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation.”

A central open space will be created, with a “cyclist-friendly amenity” for tenants and the broader community. The open space would include a lawn space, a covered pavilion, and welcoming seating areas.

If you close your eyes, you can almost hear the sounds of birds singing and squirrels scampering across benches. You might even be wondering where you stashed your picnic basket for the winter.

So, on top of the tax dollars that they’ll be pouring into the city coffers, Broder will generously create a beautiful park for residents to enjoy. What could there possibly be to complain about?

You know the old saying: The devil is in the details?

Concerned residents took a look at the plans and examined every damn detail, especially the devilish ones.

And then the comments began to appear on Watertown News – an avalanche of comments. To put it mildly, the details were disturbing and this project really struck a nerve. But here’s the thing. These were not angry impulsive, incoherent rants, by the same old disgruntled individuals who fly off the handle over every conceivable issue. These were intelligent, thoughtful, impassioned arguments aimed at a system they’ve come to regard as being negligent and unresponsive.

Here are some excerpts from their comments on Watertown News months before the March 20 meeting:

“Overall, an improvement to current conditions but the life sciences building is too tall. Illustration suggests 4 stories, should be 3 stories so as not to loom over nearby residential buildings.

Pleasant and Bridge Streets are already impassable during rush hour. This plan calls for a total of 640 parking spaces – really???” −Jean Ann Schulte

 

“This ‘cycle friendly amenity’ with seating areas and a covered pavilion will only serve the tenants and employees of the development. I agree that enough is enough. Throwing in some green space as if it benefits the community as a whole is misleading. This project needs to be significantly scaled down.” − Joan Oustifine

 

“They all do that. Throw the community a few bones that very few (if any), residents will ever use or benefit from. As if they’re doing us a great service and favor that we should be thankful for.

Addressing some of the sentiments posted here, I agree that things are getting way out of hand with all the new development, and there’s still more yet to come that dwarfs this one. We’ve reached a tipping point that’s on the verge of consuming and decimating the community if something isn’t done to stop the spread. Enough is ENOUGH!” − John Foley

 

“And we thought WE ALREADY HAD TOO MUCH traffic on Rosedale to Pleasant St. and proceeding east to the Square and west to Bridge St.! What is this going to do to us? And what is it going to do to the traffic on Main St. and more traffic to the Square. What is it going to do to the quality of life in our neighborhoods of single and two-family houses on Acton St. and adjacent streets?

These huge developments should not be allowed anymore. They don’t seem to be helping to keep our taxes lower. These life science jobs probably aren’t ones that local residents will be qualified to work at, and there aren’t enough available houses in the area to keep workers local and prevent them from adding to our existing traffic and congestion issues.” − Joan Gumbleton

 

“Could not agree more. the city needs to hit the pause button and see what the mess they have already approved does to this end of Watertown before allowing more to an already bad situation for residents.” − Maura Gallagher

 

“If only our town councilors started reading these comments! The sentiment from around town and especially this neighborhood is that enough is enough. Please email your town councilors and our town planners ASAP. Make your voices heard. They will tell you that they are working on remodeling the “Comprehensive Plan” but by the time that actually gets done, there won’t be anything left in Watertown to develop, it will all be done already. Every possible space will be snapped up and turned into the standard 5 floor biotech space.

Developers own this town and the council. Our planning department has missed opportunity after opportunity and we the residents get stuck with the aftermath.

This development is too big for the neighborhood. The shadow study as seen in the documents is going to affect dozens of homeowners! This alone should be a red flag!” − Corey Dilon

 

“The response is always the same it’s too late to do anything and yet the residents have urged councilors and planning committee to take action and no one has taken a stance for the neighborhoods and residents. There will be no community or neighborhood structure left with all the traffic and congestion being allowed to invade the West end of Watertown. The quality of life of the constituents does not seem to be the major focus of any of the elected officials or leaders. Time for the council, the city manager and planning boards to stand up and protect our neighborhoods.” − Maura Gallagher

 

“Why is a city of about four square miles now ground zero for biolabs? It is past time for a moratorium on life-science projects. Throwing in trees, green space, and “pavilions” is just developer hucksterism to persuade residents that they should go along with another project that is detrimental to their interests.” − Carolyn A. Gritter

 

“I have and continue to believe that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Enough is enough with developers telling the residents that they know what’s best for us. Enough is enough with developers incorporating a few “bones” to residents into their project proposals to infer they care about and their projects will enhance our quality of life, our health, our environment, our ability to live in the town our families grew up in.

It’s time (actually I fear it is too late) for Watertown elected officials and responsible boards to take whatever measures are needed to restructure Watertown’s laws and regulations to reduce this onslaught of development to where it can be better managed and monitored and reflect the needs and expectations of residents.” − Dave McDonald

 

“If there is not huge public outcry that is impossible to ignore, then your opinions WILL be ignored as they have been for a decade or more. If we fail to speak up resolutely there will be many more monstrosities.”  − Joe Levendusky

 

“Enough is enough of huge biolabs in Watertown. I have to now look at the monstrosity at 66 Galen St looming over our houses, blocking the horizon, with its creepy windowless top floor and 24/7 filters and scrubbers on top (and its new proposed animal research lab next door).” − Annette Farrell

 

“This building would be taller than the Rock Gym and would be the tallest building along Acton street. A very important fact is that this building would sit across the street from a neighborhood of single and 2-family residences. The scope of this building is out of character and out of line with the neighborhood.”

Another important consideration is there will certainly be a few more properties in this area that will probably be up for sale soon and we assume those too would be converted to large biotech space which would overcrowd and swamp out this neighborhood. One must remember that there are still 2 Bio/Lab buildings to be built (approved) and one can see more properties along Pleasant str also going the route for sale and development.

And to your comment about the town not listening, I think the residents 100% don’t feel supported by the city/town planners and that’s why there are many people speaking up (though it falls on deaf ears).  

With all the new construction, office space conversion, residents are being hemmed in by large and larger developments. If you attended last weeks Comprehensive plan open forum there was pretty a unanimous message to cap these developments and this was definitely down played by our town planners (they said it was a difference in opinion). Albeit by the time this “Comprehensive Plan” is put in place, there will be nothing left for it to govern.” − Corey Dilon

(There are many more online comments of a similar nature that add to this story, but I think you get the point.)

And then came the March 20 meeting, which did little or nothing to calm the frustrations and fears of these commenters or of those who wholeheartedly agree with them. The developers might as well have addressed the room and said:

We are happy to be here this evening to answer your questions and address your concerns because we are required to do this. And we will be happy to come here again and answer your questions and address your concerns but in the end, we will do exactly what we need to do to make this investment pay off the way that we want it to pay off and if you have a problem with that, you should take it up with your elected and appointed officials.

Here's Corey Dilon’s recap of the meeting:

“In case anyone was wondering how the meeting with the developer went, the meeting was well attended, about 40 people in person, 70 or more online (zoom).

What was clear to me was that everyone was concerned about the height, mass and scale of this building abutting a residential neighborhood. Also, major discussions around the size and scale of a 7-floor parking garage were very apparent. There were also considerations around noise, light pollution and usual traffic concerns. Unfortunately a scaled down version of this project did not seem to be up for discussion.

After the previous week’s Comprehensive Planning meeting and last night’s “community” meeting it is very clear to me that the zoning plan for the Pleasant street corridor has allowed buildings like this with zero thought for the abutters.

Steve Magoon and Gideon Schreiber have done zero to help this neighborhood and don’t show initiative to effect immediate changes to allowable building heights, closing the mechanical penthouse loophole, etc. Their two opinions are vastly different than the neighbors and residents of this area (and probably most of Watertown at this point).

Regulations from a decade ago are out of date and out of touch with the pace of development in this town. This 80’ft tall building will be the 1st of many to come to Acton Street, Howard Street and Pleasant street. It’s only a matter of time before Pulpdent and ML Macdonald are up for sale and become yet another big box biotech.

A more thoughtful, neighborhood centric design is possible with smart planning and out of the box thinking, however until then, this neighborhood will forever be in the shadow of the wants and demands of big developers.”

I believe you are nodding in agreement.

 

Watertown is a small city with a townish vibe. Like other cities and towns, it has its own special character. You might even say it has its own soul.

Some would call that nonsense. They would say that Watertown is a small city like any other small city. Those who would say that don’t see what I see and don’t see what many of you see.

For those who believe that all progress is good progress, a neighborhood is just a collection of structures that can be easily replaced by bigger, better, shinier structures.

How do you destroy the soul of a city?

You chip away at its neighborhoods, one street at a time. Or better yet, three or four streets at a time.

You don’t have to level the homes. You just demolish the quality of life within those homes and eventually, those pesky inhabitants – those ungrateful resisters of progress and modernization − will disappear, or at least their sense of neighborhood will.

We are currently in an election year, which uncoincidentally is when elected representatives tend to be at their listening best. You might consider giving them a call. And you might consider visiting them at City Council meetings and addressing this issue at public forum.

It’s not about what district they’re in. It’s about who they are looking out for. Are they too busy drafting world-changing proclamations and searching for ways to make Watertown more welcoming to people who do not live here to take the time to visit the Watertown neighborhood that includes Rosedale Road, Acton Street, Morton Street, Oakland Street, Pilgrim Road, Puritan Road, Falmouth Road, and part of Waltham Street?

Why not ask them?

Sometimes persuasion is about presenting your argument in a calm and logical fashion. But calm and logical arguments can fall on deaf ears.

When that happens, you might consider being blunt.

You might tell them enough is enough in the strongest possible civilized way…

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle for Watertown

GODZILLA ON GALEN

We could have had, as our gateway to the new (not yet built) Watertown Square, a building so aesthetically pleasing, so outstandingly tasteful, and so perfectly symbolic of the Watertown we now imagine that we might have named it:

CHARM ON THE CHARLES

Well, you can forget that!

In a town where 76% of registered voters don’t vote, and very few citizens show up at meetings to voice their frustration, disappointment, and anger, bureaucrats too often take the easy way out. And when that happens, we are less likely to get CHARM ON THE CHARLES, and much more likely to get:

GODZILLA ON GALEN…

Seriously, wouldn’t you rather have a full-size, towering statue of the real monster to guard our city?

Just a reminder: This is an election year. It’s your opportunity to vote for an ass-kicker, not a licker.

Thank you,

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle for Watertown

WHY MUST WATERTOWN HAVE A HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION? BECAUSE “THE CITIZENS HAVE SPOKEN!” WELL, NOT EXACTLY.

A friend once told me, during a dinner conversation, that the single best thing a parent could do for their kid was to help that kid develop their inner bullshit detector. Over the years, that pearl of wisdom has come to resonate with me, more and more. And local politics has a lot to do with that.

When it comes to politics, I hate blatant exaggeration. I don’t automatically call it lying because sometimes the exaggerators don’t know they are exaggerating. That can easily happen when they live in a political bubble that they believe is a lot bigger than it actually is.

Political bubbles are echo chambers where like-minded participants validate and reinforce the ideas of the group. So when someone professes to be speaking on behalf of the community, implying that they are speaking for all or most of Watertown, they are either lying or they’ve been fooled by the loud, constant voices blaring within their echo chamber.

I would like to make it clear that I hate political exaggeration even when it comes from those I agree with, which might explain why I have never found myself living inside a political bubble – that, and the fact that I am way too anti-social. 

On February 7, the city council’s rules and ordinances committee met to discuss the new ordinance, which once completed, will establish Watertown’s first human rights commission.

If you’ve been busy with that time-consuming thing called life, you may have no idea what I’m talking about. A human rights commission? Where did that come from and why on earth do we need one?

Let me take you back to March 12, 2021, when a group of Watertown progressives took over the town council’s committee on public safety to present their agenda for police reform.

They called themselves the Joint Police Reform Group (JPRG) and they were on a mission to expose and root out racist behavior in the Watertown Police Department.

The group laid out some very specific demands “on behalf of the community.” One of those demands was the implementation of a Police Community Advisory Group, which, included among their long list of demands was to be given the authority to “participate in interviews with potential new hires to provide a citizen perspective in the hiring and recruitment process.”

After seeing their very detailed agenda and watching the first committee meeting on Zoom, all I could feel was anger. Who were these people? What made them think they were so entitled? And what racist police department were they talking about?

If you did not watch those meetings, you might question my response. But if you watched every infuriating minute of each meeting, you either applauded their performance or you were as angry as I was and you took it as not just an attack on the police but an attack on the community.

This was a “choose your side” deal. There was very little middle ground.

From my standpoint, Watertown was fortunate to have a police department, led by a chief who was ahead of the game in enacting the principles of 21st-century policing, while hiring, training, and motivating good (many of them young) police officers during very trying times.

In my opinion, our police department’s morale was at stake and bad morale within a police department could only lead to weakened public safety.  

The JPRG maintained its occupation of the public safety committee for four Zoom meetings, in 2021, beginning in March and ending in October, with heated arguments taking place on social media surrounding those meetings, and one demonstration and simultaneous counter-demonstration taking place on Main Street in front of the police station.

The ugly spectacle included some unwelcome out-of-town anti-police agitators, taunting the crowd and trying their best to bait the cops, who were there to maintain order and prevent violence, showed just how fragile a community can be.

Was there racist behavior within the Watertown PD? Well of course there was, according to the more vocal proponents of the Joint Police Reform Group. To deny it, you would have to be either hiding behind your own racism or just plain clueless. All the JPRG needed was to be granted access to the department’s records and files and they would discover the evidence.

They would be doing this of course for the entire community, which would include you and me. Wouldn’t we all want to save Watertown from becoming Minneapolis or Ferguson?

I learned a lot during the eight-month battle for the soul of Watertown.

I learned that there are people of color in Watertown who find the sight of a man or woman in a blue uniform to be traumatizing to them and to their children. And that the solution lies not in persuading them that their fear within this particular community is unwarranted, but rather in reducing the number of blue uniforms that they are likely to see.

I learned that abuses of people of color by Watertown police officers are common but we do not hear about those incidents because the victims don’t come forward with their complaints. Why don’t they come forward?  Two reasons. They either believe that their complaints will be ignored or they fear retribution from the Watertown police.

So, those victims stay hidden from public view, but they do reveal themselves to certain individuals, with the understanding that they will remain anonymous. Honestly, I expected that at one of the meetings, one or several of these victims would be introduced to the Zoom audience as proof of their existence.

How much safer could they possibly be than to go public with their stories of police abuse, while being flanked by high-profile members of Watertown’s highly influential progressive community?

But the big reveal that I expected never happened. If it had, it undoubtedly would have been a bases-loaded, walk-off homerun for the Joint Police Reform Group and for the establishment of the Police Community Advisory Board.

And now time has passed and it’s a new ballgame. We have a new city council and a new committee on public safety. The Joint Police Reform Group lost its momentum and appears to no longer exist.

Watertown’s would-be police reformers would have to find another way.

And maybe they did.

 

The Watertown Charter Review Committee was formed for the purpose of recommending updates to the town charter (a kind of mini-version of the U.S. Constitution – the document, not the ship). Beginning on October 6, 2020, the committee met twenty times over a period of nine months and hammered out a list of proposed amendments to the charter.

The process was well publicized, and you probably caught sight of it somewhere but you may have been too preoccupied with your own personal covid-world problems to give it the attention it deserved.

The committee, made up of the council president, all of the eight town councilors, and six Watertown residents, put in a lot of hours to get the job done in time for the amendments to be placed on the ballot for the November 2021 election.

Significantly, the committee lost a member when Ken Woodland resigned from the council to take a job with the state. There’s a term in football called “setting the edge.” A defensive player sets the edge by forcing the ball carrier to stay in the pack and away from the sideline where he might find a wide-open field in front of him.

In council meetings and in the charter meetings, one of Councilor Woodland’s self-chosen roles seemed obvious. It was to keep discussions from veering off from the practical and pragmatic and into ideological brainstorming where they could gain enough momentum to be treated as serious proposals.

He would strategically change the direction of a discussion by laying out a commonsense position that would provide other members with the cover they needed to line up behind him. I would argue that his loss resulted in a wide-open field for the ideological “ball carriers” on the committee.

Would he have chosen to oppose putting the human rights commission on the ballot? And would he have succeeded if he did? I don’t know. For history’s sake, someone might ask him.

At the 2021 election, we voted on that amendment and on a host of others. Or some of us did. And that’s another story, to which I shall return, right after giving you my take on the February 7, 2023 meeting of the rules and ordinances committee.  

Did you happen to tune in? Probably not. Almost no one did, except for a small group of people who were instrumental in getting the establishment of a human rights commission through the charter review committee and onto the ballot. Some of the same people were members of the Joint Police Reform Group.

If you missed the February 7 meeting, you mainly missed seeing a few people doing a lot of verbal high-fiving and congratulatory backslapping. Chairperson Gannon was anxious to get going with “robust dialogue” from the public but the celebration needed some warming up so State Rep Steve Owens stepped to the podium to break the ice.

He said that the soon-to-be Human Rights Commission is “…a great opportunity for Watertown. The citizens have spoken. They want this.”

And he added: that this is “really important to me and my family and the greater community…”

Chairperson Gannon said: “Voters overwhelmingly… by a two-to-one margin voted to approve the amendments to the charter which established a human rights commission.”

With those echo chamber comments in mind, allow me to attempt to add some perspective.

In the 2021 local election, 6,169 out of 25,693 registered voters − about 24% − bothered to cast a vote. 19,524 of our friends and neighbors − about 76% − decided to remain silent. That 76% are literally the greater community.

What we can’t quantify is the number of people who showed up at the polls, having no idea which candidates or ballot questions to vote for. They believe it’s their civic duty to vote, but not their obligation to do the minimal homework required to cast an intelligent vote. So they ask a friend or neighbor or campaign worker for advice on how to vote.

I have run into way too many of these people.

Oh well, there’s not much we can do about non-voters and uninformed voters, but what about confused voters?

The charter review committee decided that their proposed amendments be split into two ballot questions. Here’s Question 1 as it appeared on the ballot:

 

 It’s pretty straightforward. Should we change the legal name of Watertown from the City known as the Town of Watertown to the City of Watertown? Some members of the Commission believed that this amendment would be a sensitive issue for many residents. The assumption was that longtime residents would feel disrespected if the name of their town were to change. So this amendment was given a ballot question of its own. Out of respect.

Fair enough.

Result: YES votes: 3,379 / NO votes: 2,445 / Left blank: 360

Now let’s take a look at ballot Question 2 as it appeared on the ballot:

I have 20/20 vision with my glasses on. English is not my second or third language. And for many years, my job required me to read and understand contracts, which were usually written in dense legalese and often in fine print. More importantly, I walked into the voting booth knowing the amendments that had been bundled into Question 2. But trying to decipher it as displayed in this screenshot makes my eyes glaze over.

How many YES voters knew they were voting for a human rights commission? How many voted YES despite the human rights commission amendment?  How many YES voters missed seeing the human rights amendment and thought they were voting for simple features to modernize town government?

We will never know.

Of all the questions piled into Question 2, this one, with so many implications and so much potential divisiveness, this one should have carried the same weight and been given the same respect as the “name of the city” question but it was not.

Result: YES votes: 3,790 / NO votes: 1,924 / Left blank: 504

Still, to give credit where credit is due, leadership, organization, and persistence on the part of a small group of activist residents paid off big time. And the 76% of registered voters who remained silent, gave them an awfully big assist.

During the February 7 meeting, Chairperson Gannon rattled off a list of Massachusetts cities and towns with their own human rights commissions. He then stated his desire to have the best HRC in the state.

Councilor Bays gave us a glimpse of what we might be seeing once the commission is up and running when she said:

“There are issues. I’ve heard of issues in this community. I want us to create something where people feel comfortable actually complaining, where they feel safe, where they go to complain… that’s what I would like to see in a human rights commission.”

My reaction: Ken Woodland, please come home.

An emailer asked if the Human Rights Commission “would be the appropriate vehicle for Watertown to consider the issue of reparations?”

My response to the emailer: Great question! We will check with other municipalities. If they’re doing it, we should do it. And we should be the best at it.

(If there are plans for Walker Pond, we might want to put them on hold.)

At the risk of being accused of over-quoting State Rep Owens, here’s one from his opening comments about the new commission that helps me understand why I have such a problem with the progressive dominance of local government:

“I think it’s very timely, given what’s going on in the country, the state, and the world...”

I am sure this statement makes perfect sense to most of the people in that room. To me, it’s an absolute head-scratcher.

The advocates of the human rights commission, just like the advocates for the Police Community Advisory Board, have a consistent underlying message to the community. Here is my interpretation of that message:

There is nothing special or unique about Watertown so do not fool yourselves into believing that there is. Watertown, like all other cities and towns across the state and across the country, is suffering from a disease. You may not see the disease, but we see it and we are working to stop it from spreading. You’re welcome!

Here’s my reply to that message:

You are wrong. All cities and towns are special and unique on some level. Cities and towns do not have identical twins. Watertown is being changed by rapid urbanization but a lot of its townish character stubbornly survives. Show me a “comparable” city or town and I will show you that there are more differences than similarities.

A police department reflects the community it serves. Police departments, like municipalities, do not have identical twins. While the uniforms are similar, each has its own distinct character.  

In an earlier article, I made this statement:

“In Watertown, parents, regardless of their skin color or immigration status, can promise their child that if they are lost or in trouble, they can run to the woman or man in a blue uniform and they will be safe.”

I say this with confidence, not just because I have lived here for forty-plus years, but  because I see this community, and I know that the Watertown Police Department reflects the character and values of this community.

Can a citizen of Arlington or Framingham or Burlington make the same claim with the same confidence? I have no idea. And neither do you.

The draft ordinance for our soon-to-be human rights commission stipulates that the police chief should act as a “liaison” between the police department and the human rights commission. Will this turn into the second coming of the Joint Police Reform Group?

I hope not. But time will tell.

The draft ordinance will be discussed at the next meeting of the committee on rules and ordinances, which will take place at city hall on Monday, March 13 at 6:30 pm.

If you attend the meeting or watch it on Zoom, please check the batteries in your B.S. detector. Just in case you need it.

 

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle for Watertown