Hey, there! Log in / Register
Cambridge could take long-vacant residential building by eminent domain because officials tired of it just sitting there
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Future site of a free range
Future site of a free range turkey preserve and a hipster petting zoo?
Who would want to pet
Who would want to pet hipsters? Unless we're petting them ironically...
Good, and good riddance
Now, what is going on with the parking lot next door? That's an acre-plus of potential TOD which is sitting as a parking lot. Combine the two properties and you have two acres of prime real estate, which could be a mixed-use, mixed-income success story if only my fellow Cantabridgians would let it.
They don't want it to happen
The Cambridge Residents' Alliance wants housing to stay expensive. Their platform of 100% affordable housing is just a version of "Think of the Children." It won't happen and it gives them feel goods while disguising their craven behavior.
But this, this my friend is a first good step.
Why do they want housing to stay expensive?
Current real estate holdings?
real estate will stay expensive
If this property is converted to public subsidized housing, it won't lower the prices of the existing housing stock. The people on the waiting lists aren't in market rate apartments. It is 2 different groups of people. The only way to lower prices is to put dense enough housing that the market lowers. We are long way from that.
If they're on waiting lists,
If they're on waiting lists, presumably they're not in subsidized housing yes, and you say they're not in market rate apartments. Where are they living then? I'm genuinely curious (I have little idea of how these waiting lists work).
What are these 9K and 3K waiting list numbers?
This is unclear. Does this mean that 6,000 people on waiting lists for Cambridge Housing Authority subsidized housing are not residents of Cambridge?
If so, what is the argument that Cambridge should be supplying subsidized housing to people who aren't Cambridge residents? Cambridge government is supposed to represent Cambridge people, not bring in thousands of non-Cambridge people requiring housing subsidies into our already overwhelmed subsidized housing system and general skyrocketing real estate crunch. Plus there's the increased demand for other public services that comes disproportionately with subsidized housing projects.
How much of our current problems are already due to people being brought in from outside of Cambridge, to fill public housing projects and draw upon other public services?
Being Homeless
While I agree with that statement but there's a big deal right now.. maybe not with housing (although it can be coupled with this) but with the opiate crisis. Lots of junkies from the burbs are coming into the city.. not only for drugs and methadone.. but they end up homeless on the streets in the city. And if they want treatment.. BPHC isn't going to turn anyone away (within reason and bed limitations). And since they are essentially homeless on the streets of Boston, it becomes a Boston City problem, not wherever they were from.
Same could be said about housing. Many suburbs do not want to expand subsidized housing in their city as many of these projects take big teeth to pull to get them done as the citizens of these towns see subsidized housing as a way to attract the 'undesirables'. So to get these places built takes alot of effort.
What's a homeless person who needs housing gonna do? "Move" to a city that has better housing services and just live on the streets until you get housing. Doesn't sound like an elegant solution.. but some of the waiting lists for the 'burb towns that don't have enough are years.. at least in bigger cities you may not have to wait as long because there's more housing avaliable.
I think my point is.. I see why there's waiting lists for bigger cities and towns for people who really don't even live in Cambridge. Maybe if other towns would step up and actually build some subsidized housing instead of fighting it, bigger cities wouldn't be the dumping ground for the people the burbs don't want.
The people on the waiting list are in shelters
or staying with relatives. Mostly in shelters, because those people are prioritized.
That parking lot on Prospect
That parking lot on Prospect Street bugs me, because it used to be available to the public nights and weekends. But 5 years ago, the lot owner suddenly decided to gate it 24/7, and now it sits empty after 5 pm.
It was never totally full, so it was really convenient for people who needed to drive to Central to attend arts events, visit friends, etc. A food pantry parked its delivery truck there. I even know people who got married at a nearby venue and suggested their guests park there.
I'm all for increasing mobility by expanding transit. But this didn't do that -- it took away one option without adding any others.
its liability
The owner could be held liable for damages from accidents or crimes in the parking lot. It seems like free parking that's not being used, but its never free. That is why the property must be locked.
They seemed to be ok with
They seemed to be ok with that risk for plenty of years.
If there is indeed liability in such a situation (and I'm not certain that there is), maybe we should change the law so there isn't.
I've been involved with a community orchestra and a hiking club that both moved away when that lot closed. Central Square is worse off without it.
good samaritan laws cover alot of non profit uses
But honestly nobody is entitled to parking. It seems like a lot of projects are blocked by people because they don't want more people to compete for street parking. Cambridge and Boston were not designed for cars. The population is still lower than its highest density in 1950. it is really a crime that this building is empty while rents are so high.
The food pantry now parks its
The food pantry now parks its truck in the (also private) parking lot on the other side of Prospect. They have to have had a rental agreement with the lot either way, to use the space on weekdays.
I'm not sure what arrangement
I'm not sure what arrangement they used to have. But when the lot closed to the public nights and weekends, they published a call for help finding another place to park the truck.
The Bill Emerson Food Donation Act
is a federal "good Samaritan" law that protects non profit food distribution agencies from liability. So the owner of the lot would not be liable for the pantry truck.
Is this even constitutional?
Is this even constitutional?
Kelo
Kelo v. City of New London says yes.
The Fifth Amendment says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is the part of the Constitution which explicitly gives the government the right to seize private property - for "just compensation" - for a public use.
The Supreme Court ruled in Kelo that taking a piece of private property from one private entity and giving it to another private entity which will make a better use of it, from the perspective of public good, is included as a public use.
well i think private companies taking land by eminent domain
is wrong. I mean if you offer people enough money, they will sell.
But I would like to see more vacant properties taken and converted into subsidized housing. The feds pay the rent, we have YouthBuild. It could be a win, win, win. If Boston started doing that, all those nimby neighborhood groups would start approving private projects.
I don't think you need Kelo
It could be that the City (not a private entity) is taking the land and that the City would maintain ownership.
If the City is going to maintain the property, I don't think Kelo has anything to do with it. IANAL, etc.
Great book about the New London story is..
The Little Pink House. Fascinating story about how eminent domain was for building something for the whole public good and use (hospitals, schools, transportation) and then the US Supreme Court added giving/leasing seized land to a private corporation as "for the public good". With the back stories of all the politicians, private citizens, and even the seafaring history of New London, it's an absorbing read.
Per this article in the WSJ, that land was is still a blight as of last year (prior to the seizure there were a lot of occupied homes and apartment buildings).
Eminent domain?
Absolutely. Rarely used compared to the bad, old days of mid-20th century so-called urban renewal. A large chunks of residential neighborhood in J.P. was taken back in the 60s in order to build highway I-695, which was in the end never built. Today it's the relocated orange line and southwest corridor. Hundreds of homes and businesses were demolished. The entire old west end of Boston, a whole neighborhood roughly the size of the north end, and very similar, was demolished because 'experts' thought it was too slum-like, and Boston was too densely populated. At this time, late 50s, early 60s, the City of Boston had 800,000 people, today it's 655,000. Most of that loss was due to 'urban renewal'.
Blighted
The property is blighted. It is not being maintained, it is not properly secured.
Vacant buildings are quite dangerous to communities and require a lot more police and fire resources than occupied ones.
Given the state of the squabble, the owners are probably not paying taxes on it either, and probably haven't for a long time.
Given the state of the
The city wouldn't go through eminent domain if that was the case. They would just do a tax foreclosure, which is much simpler and lets them take control of the property.
(And as a side note, since you can directly search for the property on the city's web site for paying taxes, I can tell you it shows a balance due of $0.00, meaning they paid their taxes.)
$3.7M is the price the city
$3.7M is the price the city has decided it will pay for 24 units at $150K each. They commissioned the appraisal on a property that's not for sale. It's a block from Central Square and there is a pool of 9,000 on the waiting list. Am I the only one who thinks $3.7M is a long way from "fair market value"?
Hard to know what kind of condition they're in
Hard to know what kind of condition they're in and if any substantial repairs or refurbishment is needed after they've been empty so long.
I also wonder if the very modest figure is a final attempt to get the owners to get their act together and do something with the property themselves.
Don't worry the AG will be
Don't worry the AG will be right on it just like the Sox and Yawkey Way taking or pretty much every real estate giveaway of public land the BRA has attempted on her doorstep. /sarcasm
At most the IG will issue a damming report and a judge will turn the law into a pretzel to keep the politicians happy. The state can do whatever it wants to its subjects.
They're in pretty bad shape.
They're in pretty bad shape. Unless I'm mistaken, the building is already condemned. It's been red-tagged, which you can see from Street View: https://goo.gl/maps/uJwRwyDSgYM2
(the sign on the wall above and to the left of the first doors - red X inside a square).
No, but you're all wrong
The building is a tear-down. The "units" are just demo and haulage costs in standing form. 3.6 M is a fair price for the impaired property. The land might be worth more if it were vacant.
The building is not that far
The building is not that far from *falling* down on its own. What's the fair market value for a fire and safety hazard?
If it is a safety hazard ,
If it is a safety hazard , condemn it , level it , and lien the property. That will be the impetus to get the owners to move on , Otherwise it will morph into an adventure not pleasing at all.
I hate government intervention
But I hate waste even more. Everybody has the right to try to succeed in Boston (yeah, I know it's in Cambridge), and vacant shelter helps nobody. So, good on the city for jumping in on this.
Yep, I just praised Cambridge liberals. Good Lord. But they're right this time.
What about Nadeem Mazen? No
What about Nadeem Mazen? No one is more liberal than him, and he's fighting it because he's friends with the owners.
Read the article
He's not fighting it. Not anymore.