Assembly Square, the Back Story
Conclusion:  Simple Lies and Complex Truths

A commentary by William C. Shelton

(The views and opinions expressed in the commentaries of the Somerville News belong solely to the commentators themselves and do not neccessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Somerville News, its publishers or its staff.)

Somerville‚Äôs city government is skating on the edge of a fiscal chasm.  Repair and extension of the city‚Äôs sewer system has been overdue for thirty years.  It would cost $200 million.  The public safety building is making its inhabitants sick, but there are no funds to replace it.  Bringing our library into the information age would cost millions.

A wave of boomer-aged teacher retirements across the state will soon force our schools to compete for replacements with higher salaries and better resources, or not be competitive.  Levels of city services have not recovered from the layoffs of over 200 workers caused by $15 million in state aid cuts three years ago. Of Somerville‚Äôs 15,000 taxable properties, not a single one larger than an acre produces more tax dollars than it consumes in city services. Homeowners‚Äô taxes increase each year, while city government eats its own arm‚Äîselling off irreplaceable assets to pay annual operating costs.

Wisely planned and developed, Assembly Square could double the city‚Äôs tax base.  No other similar opportunity exists to cure the city‚Äôs fiscal ills.  Yet two administrations have bungled redevelopment there. 

In fairness, a land transformation is a complex and challenging undertaking for any city, and Somerville has never done one.  But the required expertise exists among Somerville citizens who would enthusiastically share it with policy makers.  Instead, two administrations have rebuffed and ridiculed these citizens while making a legal and fiscal mess of their own redevelopment efforts.  The city is now considering new zoning to lock in a redevelopment plan that would bring unprecedented levels of congestion and health impacts, while producing a net fiscal loss for two decades.

City leaders have relied on self-interested developers with limited experience for redevelopment expertise.  They have embraced and spread simple propositions that seem easy to believe: There is no market for office development. K‚ÄôMart‚Äôs lease prevents high-value development nearby. Huge regional stores and thousands of apartments will produce high taxes, low costs to city government, and leave sufficient transportation capacity to support offices later.

None of these simple propositions is accurate.  The truth is complex.  It takes some effort to sort out, but unequivocal evidence exists.  Rather than relying on committed citizens who possess this evidence, or on truly independent experts with full access to data, city officials have retained consultants to bless the myths.

Viewing these city leaders as corrupt evildoers invokes a different set of simplistic myths.  Nor are their stupid decisions proof that they are stupid people.  On the contrary, they have made smart decisions in the context of maximizing political advantage in a political culture, and with a city charter, they have outlived their usefulness to Somerville‚Äôs broader population.

Our antiquated city charter authorizes the mayor to appoint two Fence Viewers, a Wood and Bark Measurer, a Grain Weigher, and a Public Welfare Board.  It also invests in the mayor overwhelming authority to govern. 

In practice, an alderman is little more than an ombudsman.  Ward aldermen, in particular, are judged on how well they deliver services, which a mayor can withhold from any ward whose alderman is uncooperative.  It is rare that a mayor cannot put together an aldermanic majority on any issue.  If Aldermen were doubtful about redevelopment myths and wanted to retain independent experts, they would have to beg for funds‚Ķfrom the mayor. 

Planning Board member Linda Bohan asked thoughtful questions that went to the heart of the current zoning proposal‚Äôs failings.  She got glib responses from the mayor‚Äôs director of Strategic Planning and Community Development, Jim Kostaras, and Palmer and Dodge attorney, Jim Shea.  The only staff whom she might turn to for critical analysis are those that report to Jim Kostaras.

The current mayor did not write the charter.  Understandably, he, and all mayors, seek maximum political advantage within the constraints of the law.  And fifty years ago this was an efficient system. 

But with the increasingly complex challenges to municipal government, it is no longer effective.  Nor is the political culture that comes with it.  Loyalty is more important than accountability.  Reasoned dissent equates to disloyalty.  Patronage dominates problem solving.  One has to go along with simple lies, to get along.

Paradoxically, those who most defend the status quo are, as a class, most hurt by it.  Somerville‚Äôs political culture can provide individual loyalists with increasingly insecure public sector jobs.  It cannot guide the economic development that would provide all of them and their children with good jobs.  Or deliver the educational resources needed to qualify for those jobs.  Or ensure that housing is sufficiently affordable for them to remain in the community.  These all require a clear understanding of, and a well thought-out response to, complex truths.

Somerville‚Äôs new arrivals bring expectations of a political culture that gathers all available evidence, analyzes it, and formulates the most effective policies.  For the time being, many of these newcomers‚Äô attention is absorbed by the careers that enable them to pay inflated housing costs.  They won‚Äôt be focusing much on city government until they put down roots, or until city government‚Äôs fiscal-management-by-denial catastrophically catches up with it.

Before then, city leaders will make decisions about Assembly Square that will affect Somerville for generations.  We probably won‚Äôt see grass growing in the streets.  Just a lot more Volvos and BMWs.