ARCHIVES OF LEAD STORIES
March 18, 2004
Councilors battle BRA over
land
Jeremy Schwab
Few in city government are willing to criticize
the Boston Redevelopment Authority, which has determined the course
of the Hub’s development for the past 40 years.
But as the BRA seeks to renew its urban renewal contracts, all
of which are due to expire in the coming years, members of the
City Council have become increasingly vocal in calling for a serious
debate on the power of the BRA.
When Councilor Maureen Feeney discovered in her mailbox during
last Wednesday’s full council meeting a notice from the
BRA that it would vote the following day on extending for two
years the life of its Government Center and Waterfront Urban Renewal
plans, she cried foul.
“They said they would submit a package to us on all this
information before voting on any extension,” said Feeney.
“If I hadn’t found that in my mailbox, they might
have just gone ahead with it.”
Feeney alerted her colleagues to the pending vote and called for
a postponement of the vote until a public hearing could be held
on the two extensions. Facing criticism from councilors, BRA Director
Mark Maloney agreed to postpone the BRA’s vote until April
1.
All of the BRA’s 24 urban renewal contracts expire over
the next year-and-a-half, and the Government Center and Waterfront
plans are the first the BRA has tried to extend. Observers believe
the BRA will try to renew most of them.
Councilors are planning to protest if the BRA does not satisfy
their concerns about the two contract extensions during the upcoming
hearing.
“On April 1, when the BRA board meets again and on the agenda
are the two minor modifications, members of the council might
go to the board to protest the actions,” said Joe O’Keefe,
chief of staff to President Michael Flaherty. “If the BRA
doesn’t cooperate and satisfy the council’s questions
not only about these but about future contracts, this is what
they can expect.”
Protest would be the councilors’ only recourse because under
state Urban Renewal Plan Modifications Regulations, the BRA does
not have to bring two-year extensions and other “minor modifications”
before the council for approval. But it does have to bring any
modifications — minor or major — before the DHCD.
“The DHCD has an ongoing dispute with the BRA over the nature
of the agency’s jurisdiction,” wrote DHCD spokeswoman
Beth Bresnahan in an email to the Banner. “The irony of
the situation is that while the BRA does not believe that DHCD
has any jurisdiction over its non-state funded urban renewal projects
except for approval of major plan changes, the BRA does occasionally
request DHCD approval of minor plan changes.”
BRA representatives did not return calls for comment on this story.
BRA Director Mark Maloney has held a series of monthly meetings
open only to city councilors to discuss BRA operations in response
to councilors’ concerns about the urban renewal plans coming
up for review.
Councilor Felix Arroyo fired off an angry letter last week to
Maloney protesting the discussions.
“I was made aware for the first time that the BRA apparently
continues to hold meetings with city councilors to discuss the
extension of all of the BRA’s urban renewal plans as a “package,”
that are not on the public record,” wrote Arroyo in his
March 10 letter to Maloney. “It continues to be my position
that these ‘discussions’ violate at least the spirit
of the state’s Open Meeting Law.”
Arroyo said he will boycott future closed meetings with Maloney.
Despite the concerns of Arroyo and others, Flaherty said the meetings
are simply to inform the councilors about the operations of the
BRA, not to work out any sort of back room deal.
Back
to Lead Story Archives
Home
Page