"I certainly would like to see some legal action," Maura Hennigan, a city councilor at large, tells GlobeSt.com. "This is taxpayer land. The mayor told the BRA to take it but he is only one branch of the government."
The case is complicated by the fact that the BRA is basing its claim on a designation that was given to this site over 30 years ago. In 1967, the city council deemed the property surplus land in a tri-partheid agreement with the BRA and Sefrius Corp., which was supposed to develop the parcel. That development never happened but the city maintained ownership of the parcel until this past April when the BRA seized the land under the law of eminent domain.
Members of the city council claim that they were never notified of the BRA's intention, except by an ad in the newspaper. "The BRA has admitted that they could have come back to us," says Hennigan. The BRA did not return calls by presstime.
But Paul Walkowski, a spokesperson for city councilor James M. Kelly, points out that it is not clear whether the designation the parcel received back in 1967 is relevant now. "The Public Facilities Commission has the authority to make the best use of this property," he notes. "But that didn't exist in '67. The BRA, sensing an absence of clarity took the land." The BRA can't take land by eminent domain from a municipality, adds Walkowski, emphasizing that there is a process to that.
Hennigan notes that the BRA did not consult with Chinatown over its plans for the parcel. The neighborhood had intended to build a school on the site but the BRA has stated that it will build the school in another location with part of the proceeds from the sale of the land. "Where is the school going to be built?" she asks. "They don't have a site for it."
Hennigan also points to the city's looming budget deficit—which could be as high as $100 million this year. "This is taxpayer money. They can't take it away without elected officials having a say."
Beyond the legal issues are the political considerations of some council members who don't want to start up with the mayor. Walkowski notes that legally the recourse to improper takings has to be filed within 30 days. He accuses some council members of stalling the decision because they don't want to "tangle" with the mayor. "We can't force a councilor to do anything, but sometimes you have a duty even if it gets the mayor angry." The 30 days have passed and it is unclear whether the case will be allowed to proceed if it is filed.
But the issue will most likely extend beyond just this case. "All this is about giving developers not about how city resources are best spent," says Hennigan. "The mayor and the BRA are circumventing the process."
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.
Once you are an ALM Digital Member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking commercial real estate news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical coverage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
*May exclude premium content© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
