(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)

Sir,

Alderman emeritus Jack Connelly in The Somerville Times of July 25th suggests that the city should research and categorize all the city buildings as to their significance. It would be an ideal situation if this were the case and it’s an interesting notion. Mr Connolly has not been the first to suggest this concept.

To follow this through, the city and the historic commission determine significance according to the rules and criteria set out by the Secretary of the Interior and the National Park Service. To understand the process for a property to be determined significant it needs be either a) importantly associated with people, events or history, or b) historically or architecturally significant (Ordinance 2003-05, Section 2.17.B).  And there are guidelines for what constitutes ‘architecturally significant’. As far as ‘importantly associated with people, events or history’ the guidelines are less clear. However, it seems apparent that where Tip O’neill and Barak Obama lived in Somerville, and where the first phone call ever was received qualify. A case in 2017 where an active service WW2 admiral lived, and whose picture was on the cover of Time magazine was not considered of the same level of (significance) importance. The qualification must be compelling.

Staff research a property for an applicant and submit a report and recommendation. The commission may or may not accept the staff recommendations and the determination is decided at a public hearing. This is a transparent process. Findings as to why a property is Significant must be recorded and these must follow the guidelines.

Were every property in the city to be surveyed and researched for significance it would be a considerable and costly undertaking. The math shows why.

• There are some 16,400 buildings in the city
• If we discount about 25% of the inventory straight out that leaves 12,300 that could possibly qualify for consideration and be surveyed. (structures under 75 years of age for example).
• Assume a researcher can properly research and survey 1 to 1.5 properties a day (standard metric)
• And assume there are about 220 work days in each year (researchers don’t work weekends and have vacations and days out)
• This would mean about 330 properties could be surveyed by a researcher each year
• 12,300 divided by 330 means 37 man years to properly survey the city for significance.

If you consider the loaded cost of a researcher to be $85,000 a year (salary, benefits, insurances, consumables, etc.) then the cost would be $85,000 * 37 or $3.145 million.

Even if these assumptions were only 50% correct it would still be an expensive exercise and a diversion of taxpayer monies from other needed projects.

The reality is that the city receives 2-3 applications for significance determination a month. That’s a maximum of 36 a year. Every property owner has the right to expectation that any determination of significance is exhaustive and accurate. Current staff can manage this load as it stands today and react to applications.

The ideal answer is an expensive one and one that is not financially justifiable or practical. Proactive would be good but it is not feasible.

I trust the math is helpful.

Alan Bingham
Somerville