(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

Dear Chairman Ercolini,

On May 14th, Cobble Hill residents gathered in a community space to watch a Zoom webinar of the 90 Washington Street Civic Advisory Committee’s (CAC) recommendations to the Somerville Redevelopment Authority (SRA). The presentation gave us a better understanding as to why Cobble Hill Apartments got dissevered in 2019 when the SRA voted to approve the 90 Washington Street Demonstration Project.

The CAC’s presentation appeared to be very respectful of Cobble Hill’s concerns. So much so, when OSPCD Senior Planner Ted Fields completed reporting their recommendations, the tenants erupted into spontaneous applause including Bill Mahaney, the sole Cobble Hill resident who served as a volunteer on the SRA’s hand-picked Citizen Advisory Committee. Our only disappointment was the absence of any discourse on whether relocating upscale Union Square’s public safety operations next to Somerville’s largest concentration of affordable elders, with a projected 2,262 annual sirens, was insensitive if not discriminatory. Also lacking was any justification as to why the city was squandering the opportunity to maximize the State’s Multi-Family Zoning Requirement for MBTA Communities with plans to build a cost prohibitive public safety building at the doorstep of Somerville’s newest MBTA subway stop.

From its inception in January 2023, the CAC was tasked to consider all viewpoints when evaluating development proposals. To achieve their goals, their work was organized within a professionally managed process that successfully narrowed 78 potential developers down to 3 finalists. By all standards, the CAC did their job, as did Councilors McLaughlin and Wilson who were among the 12 committee members. We are told the CAC members attended over 14 monthly meetings, conducted on-site tours, and engaged in multiple discussions with development professionals and city planners alike before forming their conclusions. In the end, the CAC recommended to the SRA a template of selection criteria that was highly informed and deeply rooted in community process. Most impressively, their guidelines for 90 Washington Street included remedies to mitigate the thoughtless taking of Cobble Hill’s alleyway for emergency vehicles/trash removal, a 37-space parking lot, and a lush green space that situates a grove of 38-mature trees. With clear specificity, the CAC produced “guardrail” recommendations that included the following:

* Minimal site disruption – preserve as many existing trees and the raised “berm” in the middle of the site to the greatest extent possible. * Preserve Access to 84 Washington Street – existing parking lot and access to trash pickup and loading zones for 84 Washington Street. * Preserve existing parking lot – 37 parking spaces between 74 and 84 Washington Street, two subsidized apartment buildings abutting the site.

Cobble Hill’s collective joy quickly soured however when one of the four attending SRA Board members voiced his disappointment with Mr. Fields’ presentation. Taking exception with the recommendation that the preferred developer preserve access to 84 Washington Street and the existing 37-space parking lot between 84 & 74 Washington Street, he then questioned the CAC’s legitimacy when he asked, “who is on the CAC and who appointed them?” Thankfully, Mr. Fields was unyielding when he replied, “the selection committee _is_ the Redevelopment Authority”.

As Cobble Hill residents remain engaged in this conflict, it’s hard to tell if we should celebrate the CAC’s advice or brace for more SRA indifference to our grievances. On one hand, the recommendations of the twelve-member CAC Board were highly informed and derived from a meaningful cross section of the community. On the other hand, one SRA board member voiced his disapproval and their remains no indication of what the remaining five members are thinking. The contrast between the two SRA entities could not be starker.

As we see it, the CAC’s developer selection criterion is the culmination of 17-months of examining all aspects of redeveloping 90 Washington Street’s four-acre land parcel. In so doing, the CAC found Cobble Hill’s grievances valid and then offered a remedy to mitigate the senseless disenfranchisement of our community.

Given the two possible competing outcomes, it is now very evident how the CAC’s planning process contrasted greatly with the SRA’s approach in 2019. Most notably, we can’t find any public records that would indicate the six-member SRA Board knew the harm they were inflicting on 300 Cobble Hill affordable elders when they approved the 90 Washington Street Demonstration Project Plan. In fact, the missing critical information cannot be found in the 992-page Demonstration Project Plan — the same Demonstration Plan Project form of eminent domain that had never been used before in the city of Somerville and requires no community input. Nor have we heard from one City Councilor or SRA board member who can recall being told their vote to remove “blight” from 90 Washington Street also included their taking Cobble Hill’s emergency access lane to 84 Washington Street, a parking lot (for residents, visiting nurses, home care providers and personal visitors) and a verdant berm with 38 mature trees. It is our long-held belief they don’t recall because the former Administration withheld this information. And had the more traditional eminent domain process been utilized instead of a Demonstration Plan, Cobble Hill residents would have flagged this injustice at the earliest planning stages, not after the taking had been approved.

We believe if the SRA Board knew this to be true in 2019, the taking of Cobble Hill’s quality-of-life assets would never have happened. For this, we thank the Civic Advisory Committee for listening to our concerns and recommending appropriate remedies. We ask that the SRA support their recommendations as well.

Respectfully,

Evelyn Ortiz and the Cobble Hill Community