Assembly Square, the Back Story
Part 15:  The 2003 Election

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.)

The 2003 municipal campaign finance reports tell a remarkable story.  Somerville‚Äôs Joseph Curtatone raised more money than any other candidate in Massachusetts‚Äô 38 mayoral elections.  With additional borrowed funds, he outspent his general election opponent by 390%.  Yet his campaign committee began that year $140,000 in debt, and, until four months before the general election, he had declared that he would not run. Political junkies wondered why scores of donors who seemingly knew nothing of Curtatone gave the maximum allowable contribution.

  Two years earlier, Taurus New England had selected Gravestar to replace National Development in Assembly Square Limited Partners. ASLP faced strong community opposition to a big-box strip mall.  Gravestar had scant development experience, but extensive political connections.  If it could deliver the required building permits, Taurus would give it a small piece of equity.
  Taurus‚Äô calculation seemed to pay off.  The Planning Board approved ASLP‚Äôs new Home Depot for the mall site.  In January 2003, however, the court ruled that these approvals were illegal.   Observers were puzzled when, after six months, ASLP offered no new proposals. 
  During that time, Alderman Curtatone conducted a series of meetings as chair of the Legislative Matters Committee, on weakening Assembly Square‚Äôs Zoning Code.  And mayoral challenger Tony Lafuente‚Äôs candidacy demonstrated the incumbent mayor‚Äôs political weakness.  Gravestar determined to elect its own candidate.
  Lorenz Reibling, then Taurus‚Äôs chief, is deeply skeptical of politics as a virtuous endeavor.  He had not encouraged Joe Curtatone‚Äôs mayoral ambitions.  But once Gravestar undertook its election strategy, other Taurus executives, along with Gravestar execs, began soliciting contributions from their extensive contacts with professionals who make their living from real estate development.
  Often, they would agree to make large donations to the campaign of a contact‚Äôs candidate in return for the same to the Curtatone campaign.  Developers, real estate attorneys and accountants, mortgage brokers, realtors, contractors, and property managers gave at least $35,000. 
  The actual amount may be substantially more.  Those donating $200 or more are required to state their occupation and employer, but 44 such contributors, giving an average of $390, did not do so.   And 12 maximum contributions of $500 came from donors in distant suburbs who identified themselves as ‚Äúhousewife‚Äù or ‚Äúhome maker.‚Äù  Four Palmer and Dodge attorneys gave large contributions.
  Gravestar‚Äôs Natasha Perez had managed the politics of obtaining the permits.  She was simultaneously Assistant Director of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, enabling her to solicit funds from a variety of distant contributors.  $88,000 in contributions came from outside Somerville.  Lafuente‚Äôs total campaign expenses were only $68,000.
  With vastly superior financial resources, Curtatone‚Äôs election committee conducted an argumentum ad nauseum campaign.  The technique repeatedly saturates the electorate with misleading statements and untruths until they are accepted as fact. 
  Voters received over 10 direct-mail pieces from Curtatone‚Äôs campaign.  They accused Lafuente of having once registered as a Republican, when Curtatone had done the same.  They said that Lafuente, who had moved from Cambridge 10 years earlier, was a ‚Äúcarpet bagger,‚Äù when Curtatone‚Äôs legal residence was Wakefield at the time that he first filed to run for Alderman. 

  The most potent attack was that Lafuente‚Äôs support for the Mystic View Task Force had cost the city $5 million in taxes, which would fully fund the city‚Äôs deficit.  Lafuente had, indeed, questioned the wisdom of squandering $6 billion in Assembly Square‚Äôs public infrastructure on big box stores.  His ‚Äúsupport‚Äù for Mystic View consisted of donating a banner made by his company.
  The real whopper was the $5 million in taxes.  It assumed that, (1) Ikea and ASLP would have promptly built 2.3 million square feet of offices, 816,000 sq. ft. of retail, 1,400 residences, and 6,800 structured parking spaces, but for Mystic View; (2) these projects would produce only taxes and no city costs; and (3) the city‚Äôs deficit was only $5 million, when that year it was $11.2 million.  In fact, Mystic View had only opposed the big-box developments, which would have created more new city costs than revenues. 
  Gravestar also gave an envelope of cash to at least one bewildered alderman, who said, ‚ÄúWhat‚Äôs this for?‚Äù  When told, ‚ÄúWe just want to help with your election,‚Äù he passed it back like a hot coal.
  Curtatone promised voters that, if elected, he would ‚Äúget Assembly moving‚Äù within 90 days.  During an October 20 debate, he said, ‚ÄúOver my dead body, if I‚Äôm mayor, will there be a strip mall at Assembly Square.‚Äù
  On Election Day, Mr. Curtatone captured 50.8% of the votes.  His campaign committee spent $34.48 per vote.
  Once mayor, he immediately retained Palmer and Dodge to draft legislation designed to permit ASLP to build a strip mall.  The Aldermen passed it 98 days later.  Massachusetts Land Court invalidated it this month, along with the mall‚Äôs permits.  The mayor remains among the living.