View Comments (1)

• Gentle reader. I know and respect the author of this piece but I disagree as friends sometimes do. As a sign of respect, I wrote the author a response. I then noticed that Gazette pieces online are comment enabled. So, in the spirit of encouraging dialogue, I’m including the response here (interspersed the the letter itself, so I note that to avoid confusion).

  LETTER: Thank you for covering the controversy over the proposed development at 64 Allandale St. It is important to note a few things at the start of discussing the issue.First, something will be built on this privately-owned land and second, the proposal will not, as is implied by some, result in building on or destruction of Allandale Woods.

  REPLY: No one is asserting that building will be “on” Allandale Woods. The City (Parks & Recreation Dept per their letter to the BRA) asserts that Allandale Woods is “the most ecologically significant” site in the City of Boston. They also note that, within that, the site from 64 down
  to the vernal pool is among the most ecologically sensitive. A basic principle of sustainability and environmentalism is the precautionary principle. Common sense suggests that, even with the most careful planning, occasional flooding and other factors will result in impact on the woods from such dense development. If one takes seriously that it’s the most ecologically significant site in the city, wouldn’t the environmentally reasonable starting point be to follow, not modify, zoning to protect the site to the extent possible?

  LETTER: Some opponents claim the developer is selfish for wanting to build 20 high-priced units, yet the same are willing to have 10 higher priced single-family McMansions built, which will do less to increase needed housing supply, add more to increasing CO2 producing energy use, and likely bring phosphate pollution to the Allandale wetlands from the fertilizing of large green lawns, which is more of a threat than the plowing of snow off the development roadways.

  REPLY: Not only have no opponents offered any opinions about
  anything else that might be built, the only people who have floated such
  arguments are supporters, always in the same fashion as this “better take this offer because the next one may be worse.” Classic scare tactic. In fact, opponents have steadily acknowledged the current developer’s right to build and asserted that she should respond to community concerns and build something less dense. We have noted that the units will need to sell for well over a million dollars. We have pointed out that the developer wishes to build so densely that project will have no place to dispose of snow and they propose to truck it off-site forever (which calls into question the seriousness of environmental commitment and causes us to note that all environmental aims of the project are voluntary and unenforceable). We have also noted that building taller towers (as tall as 4 ½ stories) on an upland hillside (thus making them taller) just 40 feet from the woods, certainly prioritizes the living experience of the millionaires who will live in the units rather than the experience of the public hoping to enjoy
  the place. The replica Springhouse is one of the iconic spots to visit in Allandale Woods and suddenly one would be feet from people’s homes. Parks and Recreation and the developer have both stated that the residents of the proposed homes are likely to treat that area as their
  own backyard.

  LETTER: Others decry the density of 20 units yet have no problem with the very dense and unattractive (but necessary) Spring House Assisted Living facility that looms large over the woods. Some claim that the high cost of the proposed units is greedy and will do nothing to reduce the housing crunch apparently ignoring that increasing supply (much of which is occurring in nearby areas) reduces market demand pressure on prices and that the building of LEED net-zero energy consumption units is very expensive.

  REPLY: Each of these things is important. I’ll take up each part of this: Springhouse was built long before this current battle began. So it’s largely a moot point, You correctly note that senior housing has particular legitimacy. Springhouse can appropriately claim that it needed to be in this neck of the woods (pun intended) to be near a hospital and the Hebrew Rehabilitation Center. The proposed new residences have no need to be at the proposed site other than the fact that the same buyers who would pay a premium for green building would value being adjacent to conservation land. So, the woods would help sell the units even if the building of the units would diminish the woods through visual impact and potential adverse site impact. Parks and Recreation and even the BRA recommended a larger buffer and conservation easements to protect this sensitive habitat.

  Opponents also point out that Springhouse and the other few institutional-scale neighbors all put half their land into conservation easement. So the trade-off under previous mayoral administrations was that in return for variance from zoning, developers needed to create significant buffers from the woods. The fact that Springhouse and other nonprofit organizations (such as Sophia Snow Place which sits on a 5 acre
  site) put half of their land into conservation easement but this proposed
  luxury build cannot do so, is offensive.

  We accept that the cost of green building is high and we’ve acknowledged that green building has benefits as does density. Yet, we object to the idea that zoning variance and development could be used to enact public policy on an ad-hoc, non-expert-informed, basis. This is more important when the standards are voluntary and unforceable. For instance, if the project were LEED certified but at the gold or silver levels, not platinum, but the units were more affordable, there’s a reasonable civic conservation to be had about “how green” versus “how affordable.” We question the need for the fortified construction on that site. We don’t mean to meddle or purport to be experts, we simply think that if a private entity is going to carry out voluntary goals that they don’t need to fulfill, that should be their responsibility, not something that meets the legal definition of hardship which is the basis for zoning variance.

  LETTER: As a frequent user of Allandale Woods I wish that the developer could build fewer units further away from the historic spring house, but I accept that the economics of the environmentally cutting edge buildings will require the sale of 20 units to meet costs and obtain a reasonable return on the investment.

  REPLY: Wow, you’re quick to concede this to a party that has
  substantial financial self-interest at stake (and spent heavily to defend that interest by hiring numerous consultants, a pr person, multiple lawyers, used paid advertising, and ethically dubious tactics like push polling to advance her cause). Also, there is other coverage in this issue of the Gazette pointing out that the developer was evasive and deceptive in the last BRA public hearing in West Roxbury, implying that the sale price for the units wasn’t known or would be lower than the cost of building them, The only way to know that 20 units must be built to make sense financially is if you knowwhat you intend to sell them for. Why believe someone who evades and then misrepresents this? Further, it might be worth knowledgeable third parties weighing in on this. Back to the LEED platinum, versus, gold, versus, silver, question I previously raised in regard to the high average price of the units (over a million each) what about this as it relates to the woods? If the greater buffer you say you wish for could be included if
  the build was still exceptionally environmental but with a somewhat different
  mix of approaches, is that reasonable? Must non-experts simply trust at
  face-value that these particular standards must be employed and only work out mathematically building 20? Trusting a party that stands to gain financially is fundamentally unwise and even more so when there has been clear, documented, misrepresentation.

  LETTER: Furthermore, I remember that it was only a few years ago that we could not access the woods around the historic spring house (there was extensive over-growth and no trails) and that within a few miles radius of the site we have access to thousands of acres of woods and parks.

  REPLY: So, go play elsewhere and who cares that this spot is
  part of the ecology of the most ecologically sensitive site in Boston? Also,
  because it used to be inaccessible we shouldn’t celebrate the large public
  investment that was made to improve the woods but should instead revert to giving this area effectively back to private interests, after public dollars
  improved it, so that a wealthy few will use as their own?

  LETTER: Most important though is the precedent that these buildings will set in ecologically sensitive building design. Climate change is the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced, for which we are doing far too little to combat. Energy intensive housing is a major source of excess CO2 production; the proposed units will use little or no energy. I welcome the new residents that will arrive in these units; their values likely will lead them to contribute to the improvement and preservation of Allandale Woods. And, I wish the NIMBYists who are so vigorously opposing this and other housing developments in West Roxbury would
  re-evaluate their positions.

  REPLY: Stop for a moment and realize that if this project is built it would undermine the City Climate Action Plan which states that all green spaces and urban forests in particular should only be protected and enhanced. So, the experts that generated the city plan clearly know something you don’t. This project will clearly have some impact on a sensitive swath of the woods. You may feel that it’s worth it, but it defies the city approach to climate change and the most ecologically sensitive place in the city isn’t something we can take back,. When it’s gone, or harmed, that’s it. Neighborhood associations and civic groups in JP, Rozzie, and West Roxbury have all come out in opposition and citizenry is getting involved from throughout the city.

  Finally, it’s probably satisfying to toss around the NIMBY acronym but it’s not a backyard, IT’S PUBLIC PARK LAND. That will only become
  more needed as the city grows, for people and as animal habitat. What's more, if violence was being committed in your back yard, I hope you'd stand up and say "not in my backyard." This perpetuates a convenient myth. Maybe talk about the many West Rox residents getting arrested for environmental activism concerning the lateral pipeline....damn Nimbyists. Committed environmentalists should be a bit more circumspect before going to the mat for ultra-luxury building. Another way to think about this is as follows: pick a revered green space in Boston. Can you imagine this conversation happening about encroaching on the Emerald Necklace or Boston Common? Of course not. Non-starter. Some green spaces
  may be untouchable if they’re sufficiently revered but the thoughtful
  environmentalist might realize that the one that experts deem the“most
  ecologically significant” may be less appreciated but more important.