By William A. White Jr.
Alderman At-Large

Last week’s story in The Somerville Times about the Union Square zoning vote incorrectly stated that my “decision to support US2 as the master developer to sign the covenant was based upon the benefits associated with the group’s interest and flexibility towards the project.” I am very troubled by that mischaracterization of my words on such an important issue to the residents of this City. The video recording of the meeting clearly shows that I never said anything about supporting US2 as the master developer to sign the covenant. Nor did I say anything about their interest or flexibility. I appreciate this opportunity from The Somerville Times to correct that error and discuss the reasons for my vote on that zoning.

As I explained at the meeting, I had voted against the Union Square redevelopment plan in 2012. I argued in 2012 that the City first should have prepared a comprehensive development plan based on community input and then put that proposal out for competitive bid by interested developers to negotiate the best possible deal to implement the community vision. Instead, the Board passed the redevelopment plan which gave control to the Somerville Redevelopment Authority (“SRA”). The SRA then selected US2 as the master developer for all of the redevelopment land in Union Square, who then held a visioning process to develop a plan. The SRA then agreed to sell to US2 the land in Union Square that had been taken by eminent domain. The Mayor then signed a covenant with US2 under which US2, in exchange for developing the redevelopment land in Union Square, would pay financial benefits to the City estimated at almost $20 Million, including payments for the Green Line, infrastructure, community benefits and job linkage. That covenant, however, required the Board of Aldermen to pass specific new zoning by May 31, 2017, in order for the City to receive those benefits.

Initially, I intended to vote against the zoning, just as I had voted against the redevelopment plan and the bonding for it. The situation, however, changed. The City needs new tax revenue as we are now obligated to bond $200 million to fund the new high school and our payment to the state for the Green Line. We also need to improve our water and sewer infrastructure. Towards that end, we have a $13 Million grant from the state for water and sewer that needs to be spent beginning next year. US2 stated that it was prepared to begin construction of both a commercial and residential building in the near future and agreed to make financial contributions to the City towards the Green Line extension and infrastructure estimated at $14Million. If the development moves forward with US2’s financial contribution, the City will then be in the position to use its $13Million grant on the water and sewer infrastructure.

As I saw it, the risk was “blowing everything up” and starting all over. We could thereby lose the financial contributions on the table and the $13Million grant. Therefore, I thought it best to push the developer beyond the zoning that had been submitted to us to get the best deal possible and then evaluate it against the risk. With that in mind, the Board extended the deadline from May 31 to June 8 while it reviewed the zoning and negotiated. The Board Aldermen increased the open and green space requirements of the zoning. We also obtained a phasing commitment for 60% commercial development which should help our residential property tax payers. We also obtained a requirement in the covenant that it could not be amended by the Mayor and US2 without approval of the Board of Aldermen and that certain zoning changes would apply in the future to the development.

As an attorney who has practiced litigation for over 35 years, I thought of this like a settlement. I always try to push the other side to get the best deal possible. After observing the developer’s representatives during these meetings and watching their expressions, body language and the length of negotiations, I was pretty confident that we had pushed them to the maximum. Then, I had to consider whether, given all of their concessions and the improvements that we had made to the zoning and covenant, it made sense to nevertheless vote against the zoning and “blow it up.” If no new zoning passed, then the developer could proceed under the old zoning. That old zoning would produce a much worse development with less open space and less commercial development. The developer also could negotiate a new covenant with the Mayor that could result in fewer benefits to the City. Or, perhaps, the developer would walk. Then, all movement in Union Square would be delayed with the loss of the financial package before us, with no guarantees that we would get a better deal in the future from another developer. After all of these considerations, I voted for the zoning.