WATERTOWN’S CRISIS OF MISTRUST AND THE MAN WHO CALLED IT OUT

 

I made a statement in the previous blog post (TURNING A BLIND EYE TO THE CRISIS OF MISTRUST) that the Watertown residents who, to date, have publicly expressed their opinions on the Watertown Square Area Plan are a sliver of the community, and that the majority of those residents are dozens of highly engaged individuals – not hundreds, and certainly not thousands − who have attended multiple meetings and have weighed in multiple times.

I blamed Watertown’s government for leaving this highly consequential decision-making process in the hands of the privileged few and for not doing the hard work required to greatly expand the circle of participants.

To be more specific, I am blaming the City Manager for his intentional or unintentional (I’m not a mind reader) exclusion of the greater Watertown community, and I am blaming some cheerleading members of the City Council for allowing him to get away with it, and even applauding his charade of city-wide inclusion.

I told you that I would make my case based on the evidence available. Will this blog post change the direction or even slow the galloping pace of the Watertown Square Area Plan? Of course not.

But I do believe in history, and at some point in the future, when the process that led to the new Watertown Square (whatever it will look like − good, bad, or ugly) becomes a chapter in our recorded history…well, let me put it this way: history can be one cold S.O.B.

Here is a scenario dreamt up by an incurable optimist, which happens to be me.

This optimist imagines this scenario:

Sometime in the future, in a classroom inside our new high school, a civics teacher will be leading a discussion of the newly rebuilt Watertown Square, where the students (who may not have been born yet) will be studying the process that you and I are currently witnessing.

Our high school students of the future will be trained, we hope, as critical thinkers who will examine the facts of the case objectively and with brutal honesty. My imaginary students are in the fifteen to seventeen-year-old age range, making them too young to be cynical but old enough to be skeptical.

They are intelligent, open-minded, and their B.S. detectors are operative, but are still being fine-tuned.

So, what will those astute young researchers think when they examine the process that took place in their city back in the mid-2020s, that produced the Watertown Square in which they grew up?

Your guess is as good as mine, but I’m going to take a whack at it anyway.

Those student researchers will spend hours upon hours examining the evidence, which will include the recorded public meetings that took place in various locations in the City of Watertown, mostly between 2023 and 2026.

They will see and hear members of the administration and City Council frequently praise the extensive public engagement that guided these leaders in determining their course of action.

I think these future researchers will see for themselves that public engagement was far from extensive and conveniently limited.

First, they will evaluate the so-called “votes” that were cast with sticky notes placed on white boards and on online surveys, and they will ask two obvious questions.

For each” voting” opportunity:

How many of those “voters” voted more than once?

How many of those “voters” may not have been Watertown residents?

And they will ask the most telling question:

What was the total number of unique voters who participated in the voting?

After some discussion, they will conclude that the answer to all three questions is unknowable, because verification was never part of the process.

Then, they will take a look at what has been called the compromise.

The student researchers will learn that to do our part in solving the housing crisis, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts mandated that Watertown rezone certain areas to allow for the construction of at least 1,701 multi-family housing units by-right (without requiring special permits).

But somehow, through all of the City’s presentations, and all of the sticky notes and online surveys, the 1,701 requirement remained locked in a basement at an undisclosed location.

Where did that 1,701 go? At least a few of our super curious kids will be asking that question when they run across two completely different numbers of potential housing units, not mandated by the state. They might have some difficulty in finding the logic stream that led to us having a choice between 6,320 housing units and 2,631 housing units, with 1,701 nowhere to be found.

Whether they find the logic stream or not, they will soon bump into ”the compromise” of 3,133 housing units, and here, their teacher might ask these not-yet cynical students the question:

Does this process pass the smell test?

Then, they just might move on to the three public meetings that speak for themselves and require no verification. They are the three joint meetings of the City Council and Planning Board that took place in 2024, in the Middle School auditorium, on June 13, June 27, and July 16, when after a total of twelve hours of discussion and public input, the two government bodies will vote on whether or not to approve the current stage of the Watertown Square Area Plan.

The students of the future will scrupulously study every minute of the twelve hours consumed by these three meetings. I will stick with a handful of highlights and lowlights, and I will make it quick – except when it comes to one very big highlight.

Several times during the June 13 meeting, while standing at the back of the  Middle School auditorium, viewing a sea of empty seats, I did a head count. Some people wandered in late, others left early. I came up with an average of 150 people in the room. At one point, the Council President announced that about 100 people were watching on Zoom.

The meeting began with the administration’s presentation of the plan. But before they got to the details of the plan, they and their star consultant let us know that public engagement has been off the charts. Nobody involved has ever seen anything like it.

Their message was clear: We should applaud ourselves. And of course, we should applaud them.

If you decide to watch all or part of the recorded meeting:

Public comments begin at 1:17:52 and end at 02:01:02. You will see that the majority of comments fall into a few general categories:

Those who love the plan and the 3,133 units, as it is currently presented.

Those who prefer to see the 6,320 units, but will support the compromise.

Those who would like to see the missing 1,701 units.

Those who believe that housing units recently built or approved should count toward the 1,701.

If you take the time to watch the attendees deliver their comments, I think you would agree that most of the comments, on all sides of the issue, are well thought out and well expressed.

The problem is not the quality of the comments. It’s the number of commenters:

By my count, there were:

43 in-room commenters – several of them speaking more than once,

9 commenters via Zoom,

25 emailed comments read aloud by Councilor Piccirilli,

for a grand total of 77 commenters, which included a few who confessed to being non-residents.

Not all of the comments fit neatly into one of the categories outlined above. Here’s one of those that stood out:

At 01:26:14 into the meeting, a resident came to the podium and said:

“You published the results of a poll of a sort that attracts primarily activists. Would you be willing to commission a polling organization to do a randomized poll of the residents of Watertown?”

Then, he abruptly returned to his seat.

I would like to be sitting in the classroom when my student researchers run across that comment and question, and their teacher asks: What do you think about that? A randomized poll conducted by an independent polling organization, reaching the entire community, and including the option of 1,701 housing units.

The class might also take note of Councilor John Airasian’s question at 1:03:30, when he asks Manager Proakis: Why is the by-right area on the plan so large?

The Manager’s answer is lengthy but boils down to: That’s what the public told us they wanted in the surveys and in the comments on those surveys. Councilor Airasian expresses concern about the City giving up so much control by creating so much by-right zoning.

The June 27 meeting was for members of the Council and Planning Board to make their statements and ask their questions of the administration. The public attended but was not allowed to comment.

Council President Sideris announced that there were about 100 people in the room and a high of 75 on Zoom.

Councilor Airasian comments at 0:53:45.

He again questions the large amount of by-right zoning contained in the plan. He makes it clear that he supports more housing. He also makes it clear that Watertown has been doing its part in creating more housing.

He would like to see a plan designed around the 1,701 units mandated by the state.

His tone could be described as calm and even-tempered.

His comments are followed by Councilor Izzo, who expresses the same basic sentiments through her own personal perspective.

The July 16 meeting will end with a vote by the Planning Board and a vote by the City Council to approve or disapprove the current version of the Watertown Square Area Plan.

Given the importance of this meeting, the room should be packed.

At about 35 minutes into the meeting, the Council President announces that there were 85 people in the room and 73 on Zoom. For the third straight time, I look at a sea of empty seats.

In the room, there are 36 commenters.

On Zoom, there are 12 commenters.

By email, there is 1 commenter.

Total commenters: 49.

Our future researchers will, of course, track the individual commenters at this meeting and the commenters at the June 13 meeting and will accurately determine the overlap − the number of commenters who commented in both meetings. After hours of blurry-eyed viewing and reviewing of the video, I ballparked the overlap at sixty to seventy percent.

No amount of cheerleading on the part of many of our elected and appointed leaders can disguise the fact that community participation in the process was minuscule. The critical thinking, skeptical but not yet cynical student researchers in that civics class in our new high school will see it and hear it for what it was.

Fortunately, they will see and hear one more thing. Some of them might find it hopeful, and some of them might even find it inspirational.

At 2:36:43, Councilor John Airasian delivers a comment. You might see it as more of a speech. You can decide for yourself. The future students of Watertown political history will decide for themselves.

I will give you the words (slightly edited), but the words alone will not do it justice because the words alone will not convey the depth of feeling, which is why you should watch it.

Here, you will not see and hear the calm and even-temperedness of his comments made at the two previous meetings. You might hear what I hear: frustration, exasperation, and possibly a touch of anger.

“I’m not feeling the vote tonight, to be honest with you. We’re missing a Councilor (Emily Izzo). We just heard from DCR that they haven’t had the proper conversations, and several weeks have passed, and I still haven’t seen a plan for 1701.

It’s been mentioned several times tonight. We did get some information here, but I received it later this afternoon, and it was quite a hectic day today. That’s something that I really wanted to see. I’ve asked for it a couple of times, and part of not receiving it…that’s some of the mistrust that some of the people feel, and it’s unfortunate, but decisions of this magnitude have to be scrutinized at the highest level.

This is going to be the biggest change that Watertown will see in decades. Scrutinizing this doesn’t mean that I’m fearful of change. It doesn't mean that at all. It’s actually quite the opposite. I want Watertown Square to change. I just want to make sure that we do it smart and steady.

If we laid this out in a way that we had the 1701and were able to see some of the ramifications that may come down the road, we’d be better equipped to adapt to any issues that we might have, that we may see.

Again, I want to see more housing, affordable units, of course, better connectivity... provide a safer, more enjoyable experience for cyclists and pedestrians, green space, tree canopy, better bus service, and a more vibrant area for our people to enjoy.

Watertown Square was a main topic that I spoke with the Manager about during our first meeting when he got the job.

The scope and the scale of this make it difficult to understand what the outcome will truly be. It’s been mentioned that the size of the buildings is right for the area that we’re focusing on, and that very well might be true, but what happens when you put twenty-five of them there? This is why I truly believe that we have to roll it out tactfully.

I wanted to see where the MBTA was delineated…our part of the MBTA zoning. How can the public feel confident getting behind this plan without all of the information in front of them?

And the only deadline that we have is the MBTA zoning, which is why we should start there. And I want to be clear that I’m not against the units proposed, but I want to stress the importance of doing it in a way that allows us to shift if we need to before it’s too late.

What happens if the traffic gets worse or MBTA service continues to be terrible? Or our residential streets become cut-throughs, or worse still, the response time for public safety suffers? We’ll have no recourse, and as this plan (for 1701) evolves in the MBTA zoning, we’ll have actual data, and it will be much quicker for us to adapt. Thank you.”

 

I wondered whether to call this a comment or a speech. After watching Councilor Airasian deliver it, over and over again, I see it as something else. Through all of his disappointment and frustration, he attempted to do the impossible. He attempted to speak on behalf of the tens of thousands of Watertown residents who were not in the room, not on Zoom, and not in the information loop, which includes the many residents who are digitally disconnected.

He attempted to speak for those who decided that you can’t fight City Hall, because City Hall will do whatever is good for them and couldn’t care less about what’s good for you.

He attempted to speak for those Watertown residents whose lives are consumed with raising families, caring for elders, coping with the escalating cost of living, and/or dealing with challenges that are none of our business. 

He succeeded in calling out the mistrust in government, and in doing so, triggered a defensive response from other Councilors who proceeded to tell us that they have no idea what he is talking about. Mistrust? What mistrust? The process has been inclusive and robust. My constituents tell me they love the process.

To me, it was more of a plea than a speech. An impassioned plea to stop and consider the community – the whole community. It was a plea from an elected member of government, who comes from the whole community, lives in the whole community, and whose understanding of the whole community is embedded in his DNA.

Will his plea go unrecognized, unacknowledged, and unappreciated? Maybe. Or just maybe, it will be unearthed and studied by future students, young and old, who, upon examining the crisis of mistrust of government, and seeing and hearing Councilor Airasian courageously call out that mistrust, will be inspired to make things better.

Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown