Hey, there! Log in / Register

Man fires gun at police from Jamaica Plain bed and breakfast; guests trapped in rooms, man found dead

Area blocked off

Police blocked off roads in the area, including Centre at Forbes (Photo by KMV).

A man shot at police around 10:10 p.m. from the Wyman Bed and Breakfast, 21 Wyman St.. Around 10:30 p.m., after police officers - including the SWAT unit - had surrounded the building, the man fired again. After the second shot, police returned fire.

A SWAT team eventually found the man inside with a fatal gunshot wound.

Other people staying at the inn - including several children - hid in their rooms. Police told them to barricade their doors if they could.

One of the guests found a gun on the second floor and wrapped it in a towel. At the direction of police, he tossed it out the window. Police later recovered a second gun.

SWAT officers were eventually able to evacuate the other guests; they were transported to Boston Police headquarters to give statements.

Police evacuated a neighboring building; a T bus was requested for Centre Street to give those residents a place to stay.

Officers from other districts were brought in to block the streets and sidewalks around Wyman Street.

Police Commissioner William Gross said officers initially responded to a report of a domestic incident outside the B&B. The man ran inside and, when officers tried to follow, he shot at them.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Jamaica Plain bed and breakfast

Wait, what?

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

OMG
Right!! The real gem is the Google map on that location

up
Voting closed 0

If the city were to plant a sign outside my house warning everyone that I was a speed hump, I'd want to get on my motorcycle and leave, too.

up
Voting closed 1

Seems the place is unlicensed but still managed to score a GoogleMaps label that allows one to see the rooms in the place, and the exact location. I'm guessing it will never operate as a Airbnb ever again. It is directly behind the JFK School, and a block from Mozart St, where the last two JP murders occurred in June.

up
Voting closed 0

Spit out my mimosa as I sit here at Kappys sifting through the Sunday globe.

up
Voting closed 5

Unlicensed, improperly zoned "bed and breakfast" in what was formerly (& is still zoned as) a 2-3 family house, run by a guy who owns 10+ properties around Boston under different LLCs.

Nope, nothing shady there.

up
Voting closed 0

Despite the best efforts of busybody neighbors such as yourself, it was not illegal to run an AirBnb out of a triple decker until the passage of the recent short term rental ordinance. And the whole reason we’ve even been hearing about this AirBnb on uhub recently is precisely because of the owner’s efforts to bring it into compliance with the new ordinance.

And even if it wasn’t legal, let’s not pretend as if zoning in this case was anything more than an attempt by wealthier white residents to keep their neighborhoods free of poor people and immigrants.

up
Voting closed 2

oh good, the white guy gentrifier is weighing in to claim that converting apartments into short term housing helps local Latino residents not get priced out of the neighborhood.

Love your concept that if something was being done before a law was passed, it should be allowed to continue. The law changed so I guess your friend needs to change their business model. For example maybe buying some commercially zoned land and building a hotel on it. Oh, too hard? Tough luck bro.

up
Voting closed 2

Dar has repeatedly delayed the hearing on his 23 Wyman hotel (hotel is his word, not mine) so the ZBA has never adjudicated it.

But you might be thinking of his unlicensed, unzoned hotel on Perkins Street, as, despite having one of the best zoning-real estate lawyers in the city repping him, he failed to get that building rezoned.

up
Voting closed 0

He and his advisor, former BPDA project manager Chris Tracy, were warned before the hearing that the board was short-staffed that day, so they needed to get all five members to vote yes, but since the board was short staffed, they could get an "administrative deferral" to another date. Tracy said they wanted to go ahead, the board voted 4-1 in favor, which meant the project was actually rejected (not board caprice, the state law that created the board requires at least five yes votes). Tracy then asked for a deferral, the chairwoman said he'd had his chance, the board has spoken and now they have to wait at least a year to apply again.

up
Voting closed 1

who is his real estate lawyer?

up
Voting closed 9

Eric, are you still posing as a "density advocate?"

up
Voting closed 0

Posing? No. I am unabashedly an advocate for more density.

up
Voting closed 0

Air BNB's actually reduce the available housing stock in the neighborhood. If you were really concerned about the plight of immigrants you would recognize that.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't understand why short term rentals (arguably a completely legitimate use of housing) get blamed for "using up housing" but NIMBY neighbors who refuse to allow NEW housing to be built on their street (thus directly contributing to the shortage) get a pass.

up
Voting closed 9

That should say “illegal short-term rental” not bed and breakfast. Owner has been operating this place illegally for 18 months with full awareness of mayor’s office, ISD, etc.

Sad way for this to have to end but something tells me this place won’t be in operation anymore.

up
Voting closed 0

This is not correct. Firstly the new law has only been in effect since January 1 (so 10 months ago, not 18). And second, the owner’s genuine effort at legalizing the business has so far been stymied by the short handedness of the ZBA.

up
Voting closed 2

Actually, this is correct. The rising popularity of Airbnb and the city’s attempts to regulate the industry do not suddenly render “legal” a property owner who does not live on site operating what from the beginning he has called a “bed and breakfast” without proper permitting or zoning relief. And actually he has not been stymied by the ZBA. He had a chance in April in front of a full ZBA board to state his case but he requested, and received, a deferral because of significant neighborhood opposition to his request.

up
Voting closed 0

The devil is in the details. It was legal because of its size. The city does not (or rather did not until the beginning of this year) require special zoning relief for short term rentals below a certain size.

up
Voting closed 3

And there was not "significant neighborhood opposition." In fact he had likely yes votes from a majority of the ZBA, as well as the support of the mayor's office, but because it was missing a member at the time, anything other than unanimous support would have caused a denial, meaning he would have had to wait a year to reapply. And nevermind the fact that it is 100% absurd to let immediate neighbors decide who is allowed to live or do business on their street (history of segregation, much?).

up
Voting closed 5

First of all, your references to the historical use of zoning (while they may be true) are not applicable here so please stop using this absurd argument. Also, you seem to be implying that somehow the presence of this illegal short term rental is good for increasing diversity in the neighborhood. That makes zero sense.

Second, when Mr. Sandler went in front of the ZBA in April the first time for this property, the ZBA had a FULL board present so a single dissenter could not have blocked it. You can find the recording on the ZBA website and see for yourself. Sandler requested a deferral precisely because he knew that there was significant neighborhood opposition. Feel free to ask Mr. Sandler himself.

Finally, this is not about WHO is allowed to live on this residential street. This is about WHAT type of property (residential vs commercial) should be on the street. I believe neighbors should certainly be able to have a strong voice as part of the process. Otherwise, people with political connections and financial resources (read: developers) could just do as they please all the time and trample on everybody. Is that really the society you want to live in? In any event, ultimately, the ZBA gets the final word (absent a lawsuit), not the neighbors.

up
Voting closed 1

"people with political connections and financial resources"

Arguably there is no one more politically connected and with more financial resources than a group of angry homeowners. And they tend to get their way in JP when they are sufficiently well organized. And would I mind if developers should just be able to build as much housing as they pleased? No. Because housing is a human right, and you cannot simultaneously have something be a human right and then tell THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THAT THING that they are not allowed to make it.

up
Voting closed 0

Wow, you're really giving a lot of credit to neighbors! Here I thought it was the developers who are the most "politically connected" and with "more financial resources." Take, for example, the recent ZBA bribery scandal and resignation of Craig Galvin. Or, the fact that Mr. Sandler hired O'Neill & Associates' Chris Tracy, a former BPDA staffer, to help him get approval for his illegal short-term rentals. But sure, the neighbors are really the ones causing the problems.

At least we agree that housing is a human right. Well, actually, affordable housing should be a human right. Unfettered development of the type you seem to be proposing with no eye toward affordability and the needs of long-term, lower income residents isn't what's going to make your housing as human right dream a reality.

up
Voting closed 2

So was the person captured?!?

up
Voting closed 7

He was found inside with a fatal gunshot wound after police evacuated everybody else.

up
Voting closed 4

Maybe this guy didn't embrace the concept of shared bathrooms?

up
Voting closed 0

Unlike some of the other comments that just want to make jokes, I’m glad none of our police got hurt.

While we were all enjoying our Saturday night however we wanted, they were getting shot at. Insane. That must be so terrifying. Thank you BPD.

up
Voting closed 4

We were driving down Centre St. toward Hyde Sq. just after 10. There were around 15 police vehicles along Centre St., but no one stopped us until we got past Sunnyside Street. We thought we heard gunshots as a woman in plainclothes walked down the middle of the street toward us. She started waving and told us that we needed to turn around as there was a very dangerous situation ahead. She didn't have to tell us twice. We and three or four other cars turned around and went down Sunnyside.

up
Voting closed 4

FORMER bed an breakfast after the reviews come in on travel sites

up
Voting closed 2

...what happened to the shooter?

up
Voting closed 2

Updated: He's dead.

up
Voting closed 2

Headline: Dead and Breakfast

up
Voting closed 5

Long-time readers know I love the chance to use puns in headlines whenever possible, but, really, when the story involves somebody shooting at cops and winding up dead (whether by their own hand or not), I try not to be funny.

up
Voting closed 4

Because it’s not a laughing matter. (Great response Adam.)

A person is dead. He fired at cops who were stuck working a Saturday night and were just doing their jobs. Let that sink in.

The SWAT team had to clear the building and those officers discovered this man dead on the ground. Imagine the impact that must have on them. And then the people who were told to shelter in place, barricade their rooms.

But uplike for your funny joke! Moron.

- a Boston Cop

up
Voting closed 0

Did they still get breakfast?

up
Voting closed 0

For the majority people in Boston, let alone Cambridge, Brookline, etc. The answer isn't more subsidized public housing or 'low income' units. Rent control isn't the answer.

Who making big $ in real estate ? These people, along with construction trade unions and developers, own municipal level politicians. They are calling the shots.

up
Voting closed 4

It’s landlords and homeowners that have been making bank here. I know because I’m both! And on the place I rent out, I make a few hundred dollars a year in (gross!) profit on the rent and >$20k a year in profit from appreciation. And that’s on a single 1 bedroom apartment in Roxbury.

What we need is more supply. There’s really no two ways about it.

up
Voting closed 0

I posted something about Rent Control and why it's necessary on another thread, but it bears repeating here.

Rent Control protects tenants against condo-related and/or retaliatory evictions, which mean that a landlord cannot evict tenants just because he or she wants to convert their apartments into condominiums. Nor can a landlord evict a tenant in retaliation for complaints against him or her failing to make necessary repairs within a reasonable time.

Rent Control also prevents landlords from gouging tenants rent-wise unnecessarily. If a landlord feels the need to raise his or her rents, however, he or she must go before the Rent Control Board in his or her city or town. If a landlord's costs go up, then he or she has the right to raise his or her rents accordingly, but no more.

up
Voting closed 0

If a landlord feels the need to raise his or her rents, however, he or she must go before the Rent Control Board in his or her city or town.

Is this done on your knees or are you allowed to stand?

up
Voting closed 3

Rent control is: A useful tool to discourage landlord retaliation.

Rent control is not: An effective method of keeping housing affordable.

The issue is that once the allowed rent and the amortized cost of a mortgage for a new buyer become increasingly divergent, it becomes impossible to sell the building without first evicting the tenant. This is because if the seller is charging significantly below market rents, they will either have to sell it at a price low enough so that the rent will continue to cover the cost of the new mortgage (plus HOA fees, taxes, insurance, and maintenance), OR they will have to sell it to someone who is going to live there themselves (which means the tenant is going to have to be removed). Since the latter means significantly more money for the seller, it is what most sellers will choose to do. This is the main reason that a lot of rent control ordinances allow people to raise the rents when selling the building. As you might imagine this encourages a lot of people to clandestinely sell units to LLCs and relatives and do various other tricks to raise the rent without actually losing control of the building. It's also why most rent control ordinances include an elaborate web of regulations to try to keep people from "going condo" but it's kind of an uphill battle, because at the end of the day it's very hard to force someone to continue to work in a business that they don't want to be in (landlording, that is).

up
Voting closed 0

Nor can a landlord evict a tenant in retaliation for complaints against him or her failing to make necessary repairs within a reasonable time.

This is already the law. Massachusetts has some of the strongest tenant laws in the US. Rent control won't change that. Rent control will make it harder for people to find apartments since landlords will be even more inclined to jack up the initial rent and further discriminate.

up
Voting closed 3