A case study William C. Shelton (The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.) I've often contended in this column that the essence or Somerville's political culture is cozy relationships and calculations of advantage that will accrue from performing favors. Examples that are most accessible to public observation are probably those involving zoning and real estate development. 44 Park Street serves as a case study.

In the Winter of 2008, Attorney Nick Ianuzzi circulated flyers in the neighborhood surrounding 44 Park Street inviting residents to a February 25th meeting. Mr. Ianuzzi often represents developers seeking variances (exemptions) from Somerville's zoning code requirements. He grew up in Somerville, played football with the mayor, and retains personal connections with various city officials.

At this meeting and a second one six weeks later, developers presented plans to build 98 units of senior citizen housing on less than an acre of land. They said that they would be unable to make money developing market-rate housing. Geoff Harrington, a neighbor and financial advisor, said that if that many units were required to make a profit, they would be paying too much for the property.

Neighbors saw serious problems with the project's siting, density, traffic, and resident elders' quality of life. Their Ward Alderman, Maryann Heuston, suggested that the developers remove part of the fourth story from the side of the building that would face homes in this dense neighborhood. They dismissed this suggestion, as well as many others made by neighbors. They made one concession: they would reduce the number of units to 89.

They (Park Street Housing Associates, LLC) bought the property on June 23rd, 2008 for $2.85 million. Property assessments are based on market values, but the Somerville Assessor's database continues to list 44 Park Street's assessment at $951,000. If this is the case, the city is losing $39,000 per year in taxes.

On July 17th, the developers went before the Planning Board. Aldermen Heuston, O'Donovan, Connolly and Desmond testified in behalf of the project. Alderman White and all of the neighbors who attended testified against it.

Attorney Ianuzzi said that the developers anticipated a request for proposals from the Somerville Housing Authority (SHA) for projects that would qualify for Section 8 certificates. These pay a development's owner the difference between 30% of a household's income and its rental costs. With Section 8 certificates, 44 Park Street's owners could ensure 100% occupancy and no missed rent payments.

In addition to private clients, Mr. Ianuzzi represents the Somerville Housing Authority. Two weeks later, the SHA published a notice requesting proposals for developments that would qualify for Section 8 certificates.

The SHA allowed an unusually narrow window of two weeks for developers to submit proposals. Only Park Street Associates did so. Their proposal omitted ten pieces of information that SHA required, but they were given until October 9th to provide it.

Since the project needed three variances, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) conducted a hearing on September 17th. Aldermen Connolly, Roche, Sullivan, and Heuston spoke in favor of the project. The neighbors and Alderman White opposed it.

Although the standard for zoning variances is unusually restrictive in Massachusetts, the ZBA has routinely granted them, and it appeared poised to give the 44 Park Street project conditional approval. But four of the ZBA's sitting members had previously served with Sal Querusio, a member of the development team. They had not disclosed this, as required by Commonwealth law.

The vote was continued until October 1st. The developers asked for another continuance, and then withdrew their application from ZBA consideration. The missing information had been due to the SHA on October 9th, 2008. Since that time, the SHA has not reissued a request for proposals for Section 8 projects.

On October 22, 2009, the mayor submitted to the Board of Aldermen a proposed ordinance that would relax density, height, and parking requirements for elder housing developments, potentially solving many of the Park Street project's problems.

Park Street Housing Associates is owned by two limited liability corporations that, in turn, are owned by Jonah Jacob, Daniel Jacob, Joseph Russo, Sal Querusio, and Frank Galasso. The project's largest investors are the Jacobs. During 2008 and 2009, they made campaign contributions of $2,750 to Mayor Curtatone and $2,000 to Alderman Heuston by having different family members make individual contributions of $500 each, the largest allowable amount.

Joseph Russo contributed $600 to Mayor Curtatone, $150 to Alderman Heuston, and $100 to Alderman Desmond. Frank Galasso contributed $500 to Mayor Curtatone. Sal Querusio contributed $350 to Mayor Curtatone, $200 each to Aldermen Sullivan and Heuston, and $100 to Alderman Roche.

This story contains elements that are too common among Somerville real estate developments: projects that don't meet zoning and building requirements, are damaging to neighborhoods, and objected to by neighbors; preexisting relationships among decision makers, developers, and their hired professionals; campaign contributions by developers who often live elsewhere; cavalier approvals of variances and special permits; and sometimes when all else fails, changing the law to accommodate a development.

Projects like those at 44 Park Street, 515 Somerville Avenue, 371 Beacon Street, 42 Craigie Street, 343 Summer Street, and the Max Pac site capture some small measure of public attention because their neighbors persist in resisting mistreatment. But with most, neighbors give up, hopeless about fighting city hall.

The city officials, developers, and hired professionals in these dramas are not somehow "bad people." They are ambitious people who accept as given a bad political culture and do what is necessary to accomplish their ends. In doing so, they reinforce and more deeply entrench that culture.

This has often held Somerville back, as developers looking for a quick buck cram ever more housing units into New England's densest city. Their projects, which often convert commercial to residential uses, produce twice the municipal costs as commercial development, two-thirds the tax revenues, and no permanent jobs.

City decision makers have squandered opportunities to capture tax- and job-generating commercial developments by accommodating developers of less worthy projects who, in turn, provide support to the decision makers.

Business as usual continues.