I wrote the accompanying piece in July of 2004 suggesting that the time was ripe to move forward on the general subject of the upgrading of the town center as well as a specific project that had been worked on by former town planner Terry Szold. The resulting piece was a discussion of why something should be done and was not then, nor is it now an endorsement of the subsequent zoning article presented, and that I presided over as the moderator at town meeting.
For a variety of reasons a number of town officials have taken up the issue of revamping the center which, culminated in the winter town meeting being presented with a warrant article called “the town center overlay district.”
The warrant article was quite complex and came in three over 30 page iterations, the first being printed in the warrant, a second a week later and then on the night of the meeting there were several small changes to the text in a third version.
The debate that followed was not unusual from a procedural stand point as the committee reports were read, the presentation was made, a substitute motion entered to postpone it and after another failed amendment attempt and a good deal of spirited debate the article was subsequently voted on at around 11:30 p.m.
After a standing vote it was determined that the article had reached the necessary threshold of a two thirds vote 54 to 27. With only a razor thin one vote deciding the issue I decided as the presiding officer to call for a roll call vote. My feeling was that whatever the outcome that it should not be clouded by any kind of controversy over the recording of the votes. In reality I was only pre-empting what certainly would have been seven standing members requesting it anyway. At the conclusion of the roll call the two thirds majority still held by one vote.
As with any article passed by representative town meeting, this article was subject to a referendum process. If within a 14 day period residents gather 5% of the registered voter’s signatures on a petition then the question as posed to town meeting can be placed on the ballot and posed to the voters of the entire town. As of Monday those signatures have been gathered and certified by the town clerk.
This is not the first time this has occurred in Burlington and hopefully it will not be the last. When an issue of significant import creates enough voter awareness that it ends up being placed on the ballot for a town wide decision, then in my view that is a good thing for the community. The campaign will generate additional interest and in the end it will stand or fall based on its merits.
Some in town government, who have worked hard and supported this article, are somewhat resentful over the fact that some of the opponents of the overlay district and in the vanguard of the petition are also the same people who have argued that zoning issues of this magnitude should be brought to town meeting for the decision. In addition this went through a long public hearing process and through a number of boards and committees who have all endorsed the initiative. The question asked most commonly is where were these opponents during this long public process?
Conversely the opposing positions are that a 1 vote victory is hardly a mandate and that our system of government allows for this process as the next step in an orderly decision making protocol.
In any event, what will follow is a complete airing of the issue in a town wide campaign effort. Each side can make their presentations on BCAT and campaign as vigorously as they choose.
The cost associated with a special election maybe some thousands of dollars but if in the end it results in a consensus being built one way or the other and it stimulates public awareness and citizen involvement, then isn’t it money well spent?
What follows is the piece I submitted to the Daily Times Chronicle 7/27/04.
A window of opportunity
In the fall of 1999 former Burlington town planner Terry S. Szold and now Adjunct Associate professor in the M.I.T. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING included a student project in her course on Community growth and land planning use. That project was described as follows:
Town Center Vision Plan will be prepared for the Town of Burlington as a "guidance document" to be used by the Town as an instrument to help create a more positive physical evolution of this important area. The plan should help facilitate a "sense of place," and sharpen the area's identity as a vibrant, coherent, district.
The American Planning Association, Massachusetts Chapter gave its 1999 Outstanding Planning Award–Student Project Category–Honorable Mention to members of Professor Szold's class–Eryn Deeming, Kristen Harol, Adair Smith, and Margaret Super–for the "Burlington Town Center Vision Plan".
One of the problems with both the plan and the surrounding discussions continued by the town since its creation has been that the entire process has excluded the person that both owns the property and has the resources to bring about its transformation. Robert Murray owns the bulk of the East side of Route 3A from Dunkin Donuts all the way down almost to the wallpaper store. I am sure you agree that Mr. Murray's involvement is paramount to any hope of success of this type of initiative
Why should the town become actively involved in a joint strategy with Mr. Murray? I will quote comments made by Ms. Szold after the conclusion of an MIT symposium at the MIT faculty club of which she was one of the program planners. "Effective translation of smart growth strategies is a highly complex exercise -- requiring a thoughtful array of land use and design interventions, all of which must be carefully filtered through a lens of environmental and social ethics." It also requires a lot of consensus building between Mr. Murray, town officials and most importantly town meeting.
In the not to distant future Mr. Murray will be presenting to the town, a development for the corner of Skilton Lane that will include the former Paolini's delicatessen and the complete reconstruction of the end of Skilton Lane. Although this will be a welcome event in the town center, it is only a piecemeal approach to an over all solution when so much more can be accomplished.
Now is the time to move forward on a joint collaboration between Mr. Murray and the town in planning for the entire redevelopment of the town center. How that can be accomplished is with a joint feasibility and preliminary development study being funded by both Mr. Murray and the town.
A development of this size and complexity and community impact cannot follow the usual development process. It must be comprehensive, well funded and most of all must have a consensus built in the decision-making bodies before it is implemented. The way to do that is to include those factions in the study process. The town can do that by funding its own involvement with Mr. Murray in developing a joint plan. Why should the town put any money into the design and feasibility? The most important reason is that if you expect Mr. Murray to front the actual redevelopment costs of an entire area, which is essentially a cash cow for him, then the least we can do is to let him know what the community would view as a consensus proposal. A well-considered well-funded inclusive process that recognizes this as an historic opportunity to shape our center can do that. The recent outpouring of interest in the restoration of the Grandview Farm demonstrates that the people of Burlington have a deep interest in establishing, improving and preserving the aesthetic value of the community.
Mr. Murray is a member of a family that has deep historical roots in the town and has had a great deal to do with the economic success of Burlington over the past 50 years. To say that Mr. Murray is a local boy who made good would be an understatement. Keeping in mind the history of the family and Mr. Murray's own accomplishments, it would not be unreasonable to think he might be mindful of his own development legacy in his hometown. Can the recent redevelopment of the Escadrille be any more an indication of Mr. Murray's desire to leave his design fingerprint on the town? No one should doubt Mr. Murray's motivation or history in dealing with the town. We need only go back to donation of the Kelly Murray wing of the senior center to see that commitment. Bob deliberated 10 minutes before committing to funding the project along with Dick Kelly. This is only one instance of many where Mr. Murray has supported civic endeavors with his resources.
The study deal might take shape this way, a joint agreement which includes funding of 200,000 dollars each from both the town and Mr. Murray with a goal of developing a "town center district zone" to present to town meeting. That article would include the actual build out design of the entire center in a concept plan. The firm chosen to do the design could be a joint selection by the town and Mr. Murray. The team representing the town could include the town administrator, town planner, town meeting and the historical society to name a few.
Some might argue that the town should not be involved in the development business or that we can't afford to fund such an endeavor. We can't afford not to! The payback in increased values of and tax revenue from a redeveloped town center would more than justify the investment.
This is essentially a once in a lifetime opportunity for the town. Although still a reasonably young man by today's standards Mr. Murray, like the rest of us is not getting any younger! It is an enormous benefit to the town to be able to conclude a development design and implementation schedule with a single decision maker who can speak solely for such a vital area of the town. The impact of such a plan would be an aesthetically pleasing and financially viable town center, which would be the envy of suburban communities for the next 100 years.
