As Baker stepped away, with Secretary of State Bill Galvin
nipping at his heels, he seemed a little perturbed at having been drawn
innocently into the matter.
The easement, he noted for the benefit of The Boston
Globe, “has been approved by so many entities that are supposed to worry
about those things,” meaning, “How the hell did I wind up worrying about this?”
Here was an instance where a small matter causes a big
problem for someone in high office, illustrating how vulnerable to harm and
blame the mighty ones of our political system are. Every day when you’re governor, something you
don’t see coming can blow up in your face.
Let’s recap the situation…
Late last week, Baker filed a supplemental budget with the
legislature that included an authorization to sell an easement to a piece of the
State House lawn to the developers of an adjacent building at 25 Beacon Street. We’re talking about a sliver of land obscured
by bushes and shrubs.
The 25 Beacon Street property, which was the headquarters of
the Unitarian Universalist Association for 89 years, is being turned into six
luxury condominiums, each to be sold for between $9 million and $11
million. In 2014, the developers,
SDC-DLJ Beacon Hill, acquired 25 Beacon and three buildings behind it for $23.6
million. The easement was needed to create window wells on the ground floor for
three apartments for au pairs, live-in child care employees. Without the window wells, the reconstruction
work would not meet code.
A price for the easement had not yet been determined but it
was supposed to be at market rate, and the money from the sale was supposed to
go into an account for maintaining the (quite-beautiful) grounds of the State
House.
Among the agencies that have already approved the easement
are the Boston Board of Appeals, the Boston Inspectional Services Department,
the Boston Parks and Recreation Department, and the Beacon Hill Architectural
Commission. In other words, SDC-DLJ
Beacon Hill, has run the gauntlet.
Baker and Galvin disagree on whether the easement has also been
approved by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Baker says it has; Galvin says no, not
hardly.
An approval letter from the commission to the developers
reportedly covers only the interior renovations and changes to the building and
is silent on the easement. The Globe
reviewed a copy of the letter and reported that it “mentioned the addition of
window wells as part of the rehabilitation but did not mention the easement on
the State House grounds.”
This past Monday, Baker announced that he was dropping the
easement authorization from the supplemental budget because the Massachusetts
Historical Commission “no longer supports” it.
That really set off Galvin, who chairs the commission.
“He (Baker) has repeatedly misstated the facts on this issue,”
Galvin told The Globe’s Frank Phillips.
“At some point, a misstatement becomes a misrepresentation. The governor should be capable of
understanding the difference.” Ouch.
One may infer that Baker withdrew the easement to keep the
tiff with Galvin from turning into a brawl.
It’s a lot of trouble to fight with Galvin, one of the smartest and
toughest persons in the annals of Massachusetts politics, and it never pays.
I think Baker’s reasons for withdrawing are more fundamental. I think they relate to general concerns in
our society about income inequality and the particular concerns in
Massachusetts about a housing market that’s gone crazy, killing so many dreams
of home ownership and sending so many young men and women out of state to more affordable
venues.
The web site for 25
Beacon unabashedly proclaims:
“Welcome to Boston’s most prestigious new address, offering
a fortunate few a life of unsurpassed luxury in an exclusive residence that
marries Beacon Hill’s charm and history with a stunning luxury condo that
epitomizes modern elegance. In an age of
sleek towers, 25 Beacon is a boutique building, impeccably finished, offering
wonderful views, on-site garage parking and a coveted Beacon Hill address
adjacent to the State House and across from Boston Common.”
Where is the politician today who would say, “A life of
unsurpassed luxury for the fortunate few?
You bet ya!”
Not on the third floor at the State House, that’s for sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment