Illustrations by Carlos Montilla. Images by Derek Kouyoumjian.
For 10 months between 2012 and 2013, Chris Faraone, Tom Nash, and Adam Vaccaro dug into the unseemly political underbelly of the City of Somerville, where the power and privilege of an elite few has dominated and perverted municipal progress for decades. The Somerville Files is the culmination of their work, which pulls back the hip urban Somerville facade to reveal a shadow government amidst both turmoil and transition. Here are the articles in full, along with follow-ups and an the ensuing exchange of letters between DigBoston and Somerville officials.
PART 1: NIGHTMARE ON BEACON STREET
(originally published 6.12.13)
Since the turn of the millennium, the media at large has declared Somerville to be something of a Hipster Pleasantville. Once a ribald mini-metropolis marred by corruption, the general perception has become that the city of nearly 80,000 is a healthy and progressive home for middle class families, vivacious young professionals, and hard-working immigrants alike. The Boston Globe has called Somerville “the best-run city in Massachusetts.” Recently, NPR reported that despite its “checkered past,” Somerville has found a new, hip identity.
But for the gobs of attention drawn to Somerville for marquee events like the annual Fluff Festival—or for its plethora of trendy features like cool coffee shops and bars—something appears to be rotten at the core.
Many of these troubles trace back to a tight circle of high-level officials and their cronies, the lot of whom appear to constitute a well-greased small city political machine.
In 2013, significant city contracts are still awarded to builders and service providers that donate generously to the campaigns of Mayor Joe Curtatone and his allies. In one case, contracts given to one design engineering firm—totaling in excess of $1 million—have been approved outside of a formal bidding process. For ordinary Somerville property owners, City Hall is a frustrating labyrinth to navigate. But for those who are wired into the establishment, virtually any breach of regulations is plausible.
Briefcases full of cash aren’t in plain view. But obvious conflicts of interest, as defined by Massachusetts General Law, are the grease that makes the wheels turn.
The corrosion in Somerville operations has been partially exposed in bits and pieces. Still, the big picture has been out of focus since the early 1970s, when the Boston Globe won a Pulitzer Prize for a series about no-bid contracts and other slimy subterfuge. Back then, the city was a wounded post-industrial relic, riddled by pay-to-play pilfering.
Now, for the first time in four decades, the Dig looks behind Somerville’s fluffy, festive facade to see how much, if anything, has changed.
The story begins this week with an ongoing showdown over a proposed street redesign, and will unfold over the next several weeks, as we spelunk into the operational ecosystem of the city’s most powerful pols and players.
THE FIXED GEARS
It’s a chilly Tuesday night in March, and there are more than 100 Somervillians steaming in the Argenziano School cafeteria. They’re here to spar over a proposed cycle track that would span across Beacon Street, beginning just outside Porter Square and stretching half-a-mile toward the Inman area. This is the seventh heated forum on the subject; at this juncture, voices on both sides of the issue—those who want the cycle track, and those who strongly oppose it—are extremely ornery. They stopped playing nicely months ago, when planners proposed a drastic reduction in on-street parking.
According to the plan on deck, the cycle track would be a dedicated route situated between the sidewalk and a parking alley, with a small concrete barrier that would ostensibly keep cars out between side streets while allowing for emergency vehicles. As the diagrams around the lunchroom also show, the lane would eliminate at least 75 spaces. For some, recent storms that resulted in snow impeding spots only foreshadowed the troubles that this project could cause—the street was jammed with double-parked delivery trucks all winter. It was just the latest nightmare for local shop owners and residents, some of whom began making noise about road conditions more than a decade ago. The city and state have stalled in response, mostly because of budget constraints, leaving a messy patchwork of asphalt Band-Aids and incongruous lane markers. Now, on top of that, they could lose a significant number of spaces.
By a show of hands at the Argenziano, about half of those present think there is enough parking on Beacon Street. The others scoff in disagreement. Vincent Drago, a Somerville lifer in an Irish green sweatshirt, gets a hearty laugh from the opposing faction with a snub aimed at city workers in the room. “Not everyone from Beacon Street can be here,” says Drago. “Maybe they’re elderly—or maybe they’re afraid to lose their parking spots.”
With vitriol crisscrossing the cafeteria like Jell-O in a food fight, it’s clear that this dispute is over more than just a bike lane, or parking. At the heart of the Beacon Street debacle is the issue of a city that seemingly does whatever it wants, where it wishes—often in ignorance of regulations, and in spite of public outcry—when a project fits Curtatone’s vision of adding thousands of residential units around the city, along with all the chic urban accoutrements necessary to attract upwardly mobile buyers.
In this case, the cycle track has run afoul of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. A December 2012 DOT review of the Beacon Street plan eviscerated Somerville’s proposal. Among other shortcomings, the state cited a gauntlet of safety violations, and noted that planners neglected to address basic items like where bus stops would be situated.
Despite the poor DOT evaluation, as of mid-May, Somerville had yet to submit changes to the state. While concerns have been ignored by city planners, opponents of the plan are only shouting louder, their ranks now including Somerville State Sen. Pat Jehlen, who says that the proposal is awful enough to give all cycle tracks a bad name.
It’s no wonder they’re frustrated; many residents, have been waiting for this powder keg to explode. But what few seem to understand is the issue doesn’t have much to do with a cycle track at all. Sketchier shenanigans simmer underneath the surface.
HEADACHE HOTEL
Somerville officials have cherished Porter Square as an asset for years. Abutting a notably bustling section of Cambridge, the entire surrounding area is ripe for avant-garde development, as Somerville updates its standing among its wealthier neighbor. On the skirt circling Porter, one property that has especially enticed planners is a vacant former gas station at 371 Beacon St., located at the busy intersection of Somerville Avenue. It’s just steps from the proposed northern gateway to the cycle track. More importantly, it’s where tension over Beacon Street adjustments erupted four years ago.
The application for a 35-room boutique hotel with a 60-seat restaurant first appeared in 2009. Since developers sought to make a major change—they aimed to put a four-story structure on a narrow lot with a reduced parking exemption—they needed special permission from Somerville’s Zoning Board of Appeals to obtain a special permit for hotel use, which is prohibited in the current zoning. A zoning board is entrusted by Mass General Law to allow special permits that do not adversely impact the surrounding community using applicable zoning codes. Part of that is, of course, asking applicants who they are, what they want to build, and if there are outstanding issues in regard to the property.
Or at least that’s how the process is supposed to go.
For the owners of 371 Beacon St., it appears that the ZBA threw the rules in a wood chipper. Board members ignored glaring discrepancies in applications. Some documents listed the applicant as Dream City Associates, an LLC belonging to Katherine L. Ferrari, who was introduced to the board as the fiancé of Louis Makrigiannis, the son of the property owner. Others, in violation of a Somerville zoning ordinance, listed a nonexistent entity called “Beacon Street Hotel.”
Middlesex County lists George Makrigiannis as the owner of 371 Beacon St. His son Louis (who also spells his name “Lewis” on some documents), however, appears to run operations for their millions of dollars worth of real estate holdings. Though he’s now nearly 100 years old, George Makrigiannis has recently had several judgments issued against him for withholding tenants’ security deposits—even though former tenants of those properties tell the Dig that Louis Makrigiannis and his girlfriend, Katherine Ferrari of the aforementioned Dream City Associates, managed their deposits. In the face of opposition and the lack of a legitimate applicant, ZBA members still unanimously approved the project in January 2010.
Seth Goodman sought to stop the hotel. A nearby homeowner, he believed that planners overlooked the havoc that such a large building could reap on the already gnarly intersection, and sued the city. Unmoved, Somerville used public funds to defend itself despite what appeared to be a clear zoning violation, only to be told by a commonwealth land court judge two years later that the hotel application be amended, and resubmitted on behalf of an existing business. The Makrigiannis family obliged. Presented for a second time on April 18, 2012, the project won unanimous ZBA approval again. This time, the board rubber-stamped Makrigiannis Fuel, LLC as the applicant of record—even though George, listed as a primary manager of the company, had by then filed for personal bankruptcy in Massachusetts.
Furthermore, the ZBA did not take into account that Ferrari had been arrested for assaulting the elder Makrigiannis, a nonagenarian who increasingly appeared to be a front for the development. The assault charges, which were dropped, didn’t raise eyebrows, nor did the fact that an employee of Makrigiannis lawyer Richard DiGirolamo, Anne Vigorito, represented both development interests in 371 Beacon St., as well as those of George’s alleged attacker, Ferrari.
“If the rules are that the application needs to be complete, the obvious question is, ‘Why isn’t it?’” Goodman said back in 2010. “If I went to City Hall and I filled out an application that wasn’t complete, they’d throw it in the trash.
Why aren’t these developers required to fill out an application correctly too?”
DANGEROUS INTERSECTION
The city has yet to fully address the questions posed by Goodman, or other hotel opponents. A likely answer, though, is that George and Louis Makrigiannis benefitted from a multilateral flurry of friendly influence and favors. Of great help to the family in this process was their attorney, Richard DiGirolamo, whose knack for successfully shepherding extraordinary projects through the ZBA is legendary among locals. DiGirolamo is so good at his job that even Herb Foster, chairman of the ZBA, uses him as his own real estate lawyer. Foster has previously said that he believes he is able to remain impartial when his attorney has appeared before the board he heads.
The other force pushing the hotel along was Design Consultants, a local traffic engineering firm that serves private contracts, and also scores hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of annual business with Somerville. Like George and Louis Makrigiannis—who each donated the maximum $500 to Curtatone in 2009 and 2010—Design Consultants President David Giangrande contributes amply to the mayor, who appoints ZBA members. Curtatone has categorically denied engaging in quid pro quo dealings all throughout his career. Still, prospective and ongoing business partners donate generously.
Between 2011 and 2012, the Giangrandes gave the mayor more than $2000.
In conversations with the Dig, civil engineering experts who work in the Greater Boston area said Design Consultants wields a solid reputation; none recalled hearing anything negative about the firm. Nevertheless; the company is facing intense public scrutiny for landing deals without a formal bidding process. Since Design Consultants provides shovel-free services like surveying and traffic studies, Somerville is able to cite an exemption in state law that enables them to fatten Giangrande indiscriminately. Between 2011 and 2013, the company serviced nearly $1.5 million in city contracts.
Design Consultants is instrumentally embattled in the Beacon Street cycle track spat—and in more ways than some opponents of the plan may realize. In designing the hotel for Makrigiannis, back in 2009, the firm proposed for more than 80 parking spaces along Beacon Street to be used for hotel and restaurant guests. But in engineering the cycle track, Design Consultants slated to eliminate 75 spots along the same thoroughfare—creating what amounts to a major conflict of interest. Asked whether he realized this contradiction, Giangrande told the Dig that “the results of another firm’s traffic study for the hotel were factored into the cycle track study.”
The Curtatone administration has shown little bend. Shortly before the public meeting in March at the Argenziano School, the DOT asked for a resubmission of the plans. The city unveiled its updated design at the meeting, but the cycle track remained virtually unchanged, and stayed that way through at least May 9, when yet another set of plans was submitted. As for the hotel; Anne Tate, an outside urban design consultant who oversaw the forum, said, “It depends on what the developers do.”
In an email to the Dig, Hayes Morrison, Somerville’s director of transportation and infrastructure, said she has not heard any concerns about DCI. “This process is on schedule and moving forward as planned,” she wrote. “It will be a transformative project; helping Somerville fulfill our goal of being the most walkable, bikeable, transit-accessible community in the United States.”
John McVann, Massachusetts director of project delivery at the Federal Highway Administration, says public outcry has attracted interest from his office after hearing of “potential issues surrounding parking and the cycle track.”
“We typically rely on MassDOT through that [design process],” adding, “We’re providing oversight that we provide on all projects, but we’re keeping our finger on the pulse.”
For his part, Giangrande gives an equally rosy assessment: “In response to community concerns about pedestrian safety, we are coordinating with the MBTA to move bus stops away from the cycle track,” he wrote. “This appears to have been [a] robust community process that resulted in changes that incorporated community and MassDOT requests.
Meanwhile, residents, business owners, and even cyclists who just want Beacon Street paved are caught in the dangerous intersection of a questionable and potentially dangerous concept, the will of Somerville officials, and the greater public interest, whatever that may be.
“It has been shocking, disappointing, and discouraging,” says Domenic Ruccio, the outspoken owner of the Beacon Street Laundromat, located right inside the war zone. “It’s been awful. The thing I hear most of the time is, ‘Forget about it. It’s a done deal. The mayor wants this.’
Not to sound undergraduate, but it’s just not the way representative democracy is supposed to work.”
PART 2: THE GHOSTS OF ASSEMBLY SQUARE
(originally published 6.26.13)
If you’ve yet to hear about Assembly Row, just wait for the commercials. Construction is strong underway at the billion-dollar development, which stretches along the Mystic River over four acres in Somerville. Your next blind date might be at the incoming Legal C Bar. Maybe you’ll apply for work at one of the retailers that will open there, or in the state-of-the-art office space that’s being built along with hundreds of condos. When you get to Assembly, though, try not to think about the ghosts buried deep beneath the esplanade.
When the grand vision for this consumer age Utopia comes to glory (current estimates are for fall 2014) there likely won’t be a memorial to honor the careers that were lost along the way. During the past four decades, the Assembly Square area—a long-vacant former industrial site that is now becoming Assembly Row—has been a tar pit for aldermen, developers, local pols, and even a high-ranking member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, all of whom were led astray by the promise of a fast and easy buck.
If Somerville did pay homage to those fallen members of the old boys club, etched in stone would be the likes of former Assessor Robert Campo and former State Rep. Vincent J. Piro, the latter of whom once accepted a $5,000 bribe from an undercover FBI agent. Along with two aldermen, both were indicted on corruption charges related to Assembly shenanigans.
With its quicksand-like knack for swallowing officials, Assembly’s foul legacy has tainted several administrations, and has left tangible traces in the politics of modern Somerville.
Stan Koty, who was Piro’s chief of staff during his downfall over bribery charges, currently heads theDepartment of Public Works, and has a wife and son who are employed by the city. Even after all these years, Koty’s sway over local elections is unmatched.
While the trials of Assembly Square have broken many men before him, Mayor Curtatone has leveraged the enduringly ugly situation all the way to the city’s top office. He’s endlessly campaigned, touting development at Assembly, and has worked to ensure that zoning is conducive to projects he supports. Those plans have changed over the years, the latest being a mixed-use urban oasis with a significant residential component. Meanwhile, opponents claim that Curtatone is underestimating the economic strain that could come with building homes on such a large scale.
In surveying Assembly development—along with corresponding plans for adding an Orange Line stop to the area—a few lingering difficulties endure. With construction jobs at stake, local workers are picketing the city over alleged broken labor promises. There’s also controversy simmering over a proposed supermarket, which community advocates argue could jeopardize the area’s potential.
To trace how the municipality arrived at this juncture, more than three decades into their largest development project in history, DigBoston summoned the ghosts of Assembly Square’s past.
Covered in slime, we came to understand what Somerville’s Big Dig says about the city itself, both then and now.
OLD FACE, SAME PLACES
After 32 years in Somerville, Ford Motor Company closed its Assembly Square production plant in 1958. The shutdown came at the severe cost of the local economy, which at the time comprised about 80 percent first or second generation Americans, mostly from Ireland, Italy, and Canada. Though the mean family income in 1960 was $6,000, or slightly above the national average, property taxes were among the highest in the state, with Somerville owing almost $7 million—the equivalent of $51 million today—in short term loans to cover basic operating costs.
As the ’70s approached, there were ample reasons to invest in Somerville. In 1969, an unknown minister named S. Lester Ralph toppled the incumbent mayor James Brennan, spurring local media to style Ralph as a much-needed reformer in an age of rampant corruption. Notably, Ralph opened city hall up to reporters from the Boston Globe, who in 1971 exposed deep-rooted municipal corruption in a series that went on to win a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. Among other revelations, the reporters showed that throughout the ’60s, Somerville spent the modern day equivalent of $31 million on no-bid contracts given to businesses connected to the government by financial and familial ties.
In 1980, Mayor Eugene Brune took office, and promptly installed a staff of young, idealistic professionals. In a tumultuous decade, Brune was a competent and ethical mayor, but his time was marked by indictments and convictions: an assistant director at the city’s housing authority was found guilty of fraud; an administrator at the Council on Aging was charged with misappropriating funds; a director of the Somerville-Cambridge Economic Council was caught embezzling $33,000 to support his cocaine habit. Much of the rigmarole revolved around Assembly Square.
Close to Boston and directly on the water, Assembly Square has always been ripe for development.
That opportunity first presented itself in the mid-’70s, after a warehouse outfit on the property closed down, allowing the city to purchase the land. A local builder, the East Bay Development Corp., promised office space, revitalization, and more than 1,000 jobs. Instead, Somerville got a Jordan Marsh, a Kmart, and a headache that would last into the new millennium.
Known for his year-round tan and impeccable swagger, Vincent Piro worked his way up from Somerville alderman to state committeeman to a seat in the state House of Representatives in 1967. By 1984, Piro had become the majority whip on Beacon Hill, making him an attractive target for a federal probe into apparent bribery swindles. Posing as a representative for the East Bay Development Corp., an FBI agent named Jack Callahan had already busted—and subsequently flipped—Alderman Timothy Creedon, who brokered city approval for Assembly liquor licenses in exchange for an $8,500 payoff.
With Creedon on board, the US Attorney’s Office dispatched Callahan to visit Piro at the State House with a wire on. The plot initially worked; Piro asked the undercover for $25,000, specifying that he had to “grease a few guys.” But three weeks later, Piro invited Callahan back to his office and returned the money, claiming that his conscience wouldn’t let him take the bribe.
Despite taped evidence, Piro never went down in the liquor license dragnet. A judge declared a mistrial in his proceedings in 1984; six months later, the state rep was found not guilty in federal court. Others were less fortunate. Alderman Creedon was sentenced to a year in prison for pocketing bribes, while Assessor Robert Campo was also indicted in connection with Assembly corruption. The perp walk continued with the indictment of Campo’s son-in-law, Ward 3 Alderman Michael McKenna.
At the Campo-McKenna trial, testimony revealed that aldermen Frank Bakey, Alan Kenney, and Vincent Ciampa also accepted contributions in exchange for votes on liquor licenses. So, apparently, did Ward 5 Alderman Joe Macaluso, who admitted to taking $350 from a donor who had first tried to bribe him. Years later, Macaluso had a criminal complaint issued against him after cops found a car that he reported stolen parked on his Martha’s Vineyard property.
And still, he remains a fixture in Somerville government—Macaluso currently serves as executive director of the Somerville Housing Authority.
THE OPPOSITION
Despite a lack of a cohesive master plan and funding, in the early 1990s, Assembly took a big step with the arrival of a Home Depot. But between economic downturns and a costly focus on crime fighting, Mayor Michael Capuano’s administration accomplished little in the way of beautifying the site.
In 1998, former school committee member Dorothy Kelly Gay replaced Capuano in a special election, defeating sitting Aldermen Joe Curtatone and John Buonomo. Gay’s rise coincided with the formation of the Mystic View Task Force—a citizen group established to advocate for community interests in the Assembly building process. Their goals: $30 million in new property tax revenues, 30,000 new permanent jobs, and 30 acres of open space.
Mystic View presented evidence that, developed as an office-based neighborhood with supporting retail and housing, Assembly Square could easily achieve those goals. But in order to do that, big-box behemoths—which had dominated much of the Assembly discussion—could not be an option. Office complexes score high value assessments, which result in greater tax revenue and more jobs. Not so much in the case of stores and restaurants, though developers find retail sexy on account of space being easy to lease. Mystic View held the position that focusing the whole project around retail would underutilize the property, as previous development initiatives had shown. Furthermore, they argued that such development would fall short of spurring the tax influx that the city needed.
Mayor Gay had other ideas; though she told the Globe that she agreed with Mystic View, to the dismay of many, she called for a big-box concept. The task force alleged that the proposal violated a Somerville zoning ordinance, leading to a conflict that became a key political instrument for Alderman Curtatone when, in 2003, he launched his second bid for mayor. Casting Assembly as a central campaign issue—arguing that it would become a strip mall over his “dead body”—Curtatone won the election. In his efforts, the four-term alderman had the backing of Assembly veterans including Stan Koty, the former Piro chief of staff. (Soon after Curtatone took office, Koty was handed the DPW seat that he holds to this day.)
Curtatone also got assistance from Natasha Perez, a former campaign staffer who worked on his previous mayoral run. Perez, also deputy director of the state Democratic party at the time, was working for a company called Gravestar, which belonged the limited partnership that wanted to develop a strip mall at Assembly. There, Perez was tasked with managing political and media relations for Assembly development efforts.
In the process of campaigning, the aspiring mayor—whose campaign account started off more than $100,000 in debt in 2003—accepted thousands in donations from real estate professionals. Bolstered by these private forces, he outspent his opponent by nearly 400 percent, and sailed to victory. With Curtatone in office, Boston-based attorneys Palmer & Dodge, whose partners pumped nearly $2,000 into his campaign, was paid at least $450,000 to write new zoning for Assembly.
The resulting map—allowing for a strip mall, which Curtatone had previously protested—was approved.
Of the involved parties, the properties’ commercial interests—chiefly Taurus New England and Gravestar, both of an alliance called Assembly Square Limited Partners—made out the best. With the allure of quick leases boosted by the retail-friendly zoning, the land became attractive to potential developers. That allowed the limited partnership, with former Curtatone campaign staffer Perez representing them at city hall, to flip Assembly at a $30 million profit.
Having bought the property for $64 million in 2005, the Maryland-based Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRIT) quickly built a Staples and a Christmas Tree Shop. Mystic View sued the city, and a Massachusetts land court later ruled that Palmer and Dodge’s zoning amendment was illegal. But by then, Federal Realty Investment Trust had bought the property and built a big-box strip mall. Playing defense, city hall issued a press release applauding the court’s ruling—even though it nullified Curtatone’s prescribed plans. Meanwhile, IKEA had also bought land at Assembly, and was planning to build there as well. So rather than stop development in its tracks, Mystic View, FRIT, and IKEA entered mediation to determine the future of Assembly Row. In the process, all sides secured concessions, resulting in a sort of stalemate. As part of the agreement, residents were promised designated office and R&D facilities, plus ample open green space along the Mystic. FRIT and IKEA also pitched in $15 million for the Orange Line station.
For better or worse, those talks led to the site’s current plan.
PARADISE LOST
Since buying into the area, Federal appears to have gained tremendous influence at city hall. In the past three years alone, the builders contributed $100,000 to the city for a new municipal hockey rink, while Curtatone has accepted $2,150 from company executives. FRIT’s relationship with the mayor has proven fruitful; in 2010, Curtatone helped secure a $25 million loan from the state to pay for new infrastructure in Assembly—despite a legal obligation carried over from the previous owner providing that FRIT complete such work themselves. Endorsing a plan that strapped city taxpayers with the burden—$25 million, plus interest, to be paid off over the next 30 years—Curtatone moved for the financing arrangement after FRIT, a publicly traded company worth billions, threatened to walk away from Somerville.
There’s also a showdown brewing over local jobs, as storefronts like Starbucks and Burger Dive are already up-and-running, and with a multiplex and other large buildings in the works. A city spokesperson tells the Dig that “the Mayor has taken every available legal and legislative route to cultivate an environment in Somerville that benefits local workers.” Still, his administration spoke in support of FRIT’s hiring practices to the Somerville Journal—even as residents picketed the project over the lack of local jobs in its development thus far.
Shortly after IKEA backed away from the parcel last year (the Swedish company maintains ownership, but will not develop a store there), FRIT announced intentions to build a single-story supermarket on the grounds—a proposal that would again require a new zoning initiative. After spending more than a decade fighting over best uses for Assembly, Mystic View members argue that the store should serve as the first floor of a larger building that includes revenue-driving office space. Activists say that FRIT’s proposal serves as a reminder about whose corner Curtatone stands in; in response, city spokesperson Denise Taylor tells the Dig that the “one-story grocery store proposal has not moved forward because we are confident this plan will improve, thanks to the very helpful public comments so far and our goal of finding more creative and innovative plans for this space.” Still, the agenda for a public meeting to discuss the project in July refers to the development as a “ground-floor supermarket.”
From Mystic View’s perspective, the supermarket issue rings familiar, with City Hall apparently petitioning for short-term solutions that benefit developers more than residents. Referring to the latest feud as “déjà vu,” task force member Wig Zamore says the episode harkens back to debates of decades past. “For a political establishment that [doesn’t have] lot of mixed-use experience, it’s easier to just go with what the most powerful developer asks you to do,” he says.
“Meanwhile, we’re just falling further and further behind Cambridge and Boston.”
PART 3: RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
(originally published 7.10.13)
There are a few reasons that a Somervillian might have to brave the Zoning Board of Appeals. Most likely, they’re a homeowner hoping to add something like a loft over their garage, or maybe they’re a contractor framing from scratch. Whatever you wish to change, if you’re before the ZBA Machine it means you want to do something that requires you to bend or break existing zoning ordinances.
As the body that decides who receives such favors, the ZBA is by some measures the most powerful appointed board in Somerville. Meeting every other Thursday in the aldermanic chambers—an echoey old beige room on the second floor of City Hall—the ZBA’s five members and two alternates serve as a de facto steering wheel for the city.
Under the leadership of Mayor Joe Curtatone, development in Somerville has advanced on two tracks. First, as part of a comprehensive 20-year plan called SomerVision, which addresses transportation and cultural improvements but also includes large-scale expansion of the city’s residential and commercial tax bases. That’s the long game, quarterbacked by Curtatone’s Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development. Complementing those efforts, another, less streamlined approach is also underway, in which small hotels, condominiums, and other vertical dreams are aggressively courted by city officials.
As Somerville expands upward, a pattern has emerged in which preferred developers appear to win indiscriminate approval. One builder, for example, has been permitted to keep working in the city despite leaving behind a trail of litigated money pits. At the same time, contractors are fattening the war chests of important politicians. Of the 45 biggest projects that the ZBA approved between 2010 and 2011— their case load minus small-scale residential applications — all but nine were for applicants who donated, either directly or by proxy, to Curtatone.
As DigBoston has revealed over the past month, certain companies can seemingly build anything in Somerville if the proper levers are aligned, and the appropriate cogs are greased. This week, we lift the hood and take a hard look at the machine that makes it possible.
FIXER-UPPERS
To redraw zoning maps in Somerville, it helps to work with people who are wired into the municipal woodwork. One such all-star is local real estate attorney Richard DiGirolamo. With DiGirolamo’s guidance, several applicants appear to have manipulated the ZBA, which typically rewards approval to even his most controversial and unscrupulous clients.
With its rubber stamps, the ZBA has advanced projects that violate state law and city ordinances. In the event that neighbors push back against these violations—and against developers with awful track records—they’re left to face a relentless city legal department. Some homeowners have prevailed in court; even in those situations, the city still seems to favor builders over residents. A city spokesperson says that Somerville has an “excellent track record,” with only 15 decisions appealed in the past decade. Those who have contested rulings, however, tell a different story.
Officials appear to use the zoning board as a favor bank for friends and colleagues. ZBA Chairman Herb Foster even votes on cases that are brought before the board by DiGirolamo, who served as his real estate attorney for years. Asked about a potential conflict of interest, Foster has claimed that there is none—even though DiGirolamo, who faces the ZBA several dozen times a year, helped the chairman win board approval for a condo conversion in 2003.
In one instance, Foster raised ethical issues for accepting $1,600 in donations for the charity he runs from former Alderman Sean O’Donovan, and then voting in favor of a highly contested condo conversion of O’Donovan’s that DiGirolamo brought to the ZBA. The chairman also beckoned watchdogs by—after recusing himself—successfully appealing his own board for a special permit that effectively increased the value of a property he owned on Cross Street.
Then there’s the curious case of Sal Querusio, a sometimes city contractor and former ZBA member who gave $250 to Foster’s daughter for her 2005 run for an alderman seat. In 2008, Querusio applied to build a private senior housing complex on Park Street. But when he proposed squeezing 89 units onto a lot permitting less than half that many—seeking new zoning that reduced the minimum square footage of for-profit senior units—abutters whipped into a frenzy. After activists revealed that he neglected to disclose that he had served with the majority of sitting ZBA members—a violation of state law—Querusio withdrew his plan.
Curtatone, who appoints the board, has only furthered the perception that the ZBA is an old boys club for cronies. Earlier this year, the mayor caught flack for nominating Donald Norton—a local real estate agent and owner of the Somerville News—to the ZBA. A city spokesperson says Norton was “nominated due to his extensive background in real estate and his broad knowledge of the community.” But Norton’s newspaper, where one of the Dig reporters on this story previously worked, has made nearly $100,000 from city contracts since 2011. The relationship gets more personal: the News publisher, who regularly praises the Curtatone administration in his paper, sold the mayor his home in the Ten Hills neighborhood. Less than two weeks after being nominated, following critical press from the Somerville Journal, Norton withdrew himself from the selection process.
DO IT FOR DILBOY
Private First Class George Dilboy may be the toughest guy to ever call Somerville home. According to military records, on July 18, 1918, Dilboy’s U.S. Army regiment advanced on the Germans just outside of Paris, where he charged into a bullet shower while attempting to defend comrades. Dilboy died from fatal injuries, but not before trudging toward the enemy with half of his leg severed, and gunning down a pair of rival riflemen.
The Dilboy legacy is strong in Somerville, with a bust of the Medal of Honor recipient prominently placed at City Hall, a stadium bearing his name, and a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Davis Square named for the hero. So it’s fitting that the warrior’s tradition has been channeled in the battle over his namesake veteran’s facility, which developers are angling to move half a block down Summer Street and into a residential zone.
The rift began in 2002, when businessmen Roberto Arista and Marc Daigle purchased a small parcel at 353 Summer St. Since the area is zoned for seven apartments, the partners raised concerns with their proposing to build twice that many units there. First, an orthodontist who lives next door sued their company, then known as Emerald Development Group, saying the plans called for digging underneath his building. The neighbor lost, but Emerald—which changed its name to Dakota Partners—soon ran into another hurdle when the city stopped them from removing a tree. Arista and Daigle then sued Somerville for blocking their development, and in 2009 were granted an economic “hardship” extension by the ZBA. Abutters then grew even more suspicious after the mysterious disappearance of tape from a past ZBA meeting in which Assistant City Solicitor Shapiro told members that applicants couldn’t keep returning for extensions. In response, neighbors sued the city, arguing that the board’s reasoning was bogus. The court agreed.
By 2011, the pair had once again changed the name of their company, this time to Strategic Capital Partners, and devised a new strategy for Summer Street. To help push the initiative—an updated plan that called for 31 condos—they again enlisted DiGirolamo to shepherd their design through the zoning board.
For their scheme to work, Arista and Daigle also shored up backing from the Dilboy VFW, which owns the parking lot at 351 Summer St. between their hall and the property that developers were trying to finagle. With a facility that couldn’t meet state fire codes, veterans were happy to help the developers, who enticed them with the promise of a flashy new hall in their expanded structure.
The new arrangement was bulletproof. At the ZBA, DiGirolamo had an approving City Hall on his side; Somerville’s planning director at the time, Monica Lamboy, went so far as to tout the project as a desperately needed “mixed use” development that could help veterans. In turn, the city pitted abutters against veterans. Arista and Daigle finally had leverage, and a parcel more than double the size of what they started with. Their neighbors, however, were more dismayed than ever, as the new 8,300 square foot VFW building—designed to hold up to 355 people at up to 180 non-member party rentals a year—would be moving in next door.
There were other issues. The zoning process calls for the results of environmental tests to be disclosed to the board. Arista and Daigle had commissioned such tests on their lot—the site of a former gas station—with some results indicating possible contamination. Those reports, however, were kept concealed until residents spoke out at a ZBA hearing. Despite an apparent violation, the board voted to allow Daigle and Arista to withdraw their plans without prejudice, and to re-submit their application soon after. Tension only heightened after residents discovered that officials undercharged the builders for application fees.
With DiGirolamo still representing them, Strategic continued ZBA proceedings with the gusto of Dilboy himself. Nothing would impede them this time—not even their old Summer Street nemeses, who had also discovered that the licensed site professional who was hired to conduct environmental tests had been recently suspended by the state board that certifies waste cleanup workers.
After hammering at eco issues, abutters called attention to the basement where veterans hung out, which by code permitted zero occupancy. Furthermore, members lacked necessary entertainment and common victualer licenses. Under pressure, Somerville fire inspectors temporarily closed the post in late 2011. It didn’t matter though. In the end, the ZBA approved the plans in December of that year—on the anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Chairman Foster, whose father joined the Dilboy post after surviving that Day of Infamy, took a sentimental tone in approving.
“I’m proud to vote for the veterans,” the chairman said. “This is the only way they’re going to get a new post.”
A lawsuit over the ruling is still pending. In April, a Middlesex Superior Court judge denied Strategic Capital its motion to dismiss claims against neighbors. To abutters like Nancy Iappini, the decision’s pointed wording brought relief, but only reaffirmed what they’ve told city hall for years: the Dilboy proposal “would move a substantial source of noise . . . much closer to their home;” more importantly, the “ZBA’s decision does not explain why the new VFW function hall and bar . . . constitutes a ‘[p]rivate, non-profit club’ that may be sited in [a residential] district . . . rather than a ‘dance hall’ or ‘entertainment facility’ that is not permitted.”
CODE RED GREEN LIGHT
During the ordeal on Summer Street, Arista and Daigle continued doing other business in Somerville, and completed four buildings with an unusual number of code defects. A property of theirs on Broadway in West Somerville had a lienplaced on it after a county judge found that condominiums they built and sold there had crossed gas lines, buckling floors, improperly functioning furnaces, and an improperly installed roof. According to court documents, two of Arista’s and Daigle’s buildings on Osgood Street also needed repairs costing tens of thousands of dollars—conditions included a leaky roof, and windows that had not been installed properly.
A similar fate nearly befell a complex in South Kingstown, Rhode Island. There, Jeffrey O’Hara is the official who enforces building codes. He has a thick folder of documents that cite a range of code issues at an active adult development that Dakota built in his town.
In 2009, control of the South Kingstown property was given to a bank after O’Hara—citing problems ranging from moldy materials to cut trusses—refused to approve the complex. Arista blamed the economy for the bankruptcy. O’Hara tells a different story.
“I deal with building code and building code only,” the Rhode Island inspector said in 2011. “Personally, I wouldn’t hire them to shingle a dog house.”
Arista and Daigle have had more luck in Somerville. In defense of their flawed condominiums, Arista has maintained in interviews that owners failed to properly report problems. The developers have also said that buyer issues were less serious than alleged, noting that inspectors had not flagged their properties.
Perhaps not unrelated, Arista and Daigle’s projects were greenlit by a department whose superintendents lacked proper certification. George Landers, who served in the position from 2004 to 2010, never passed state tests to become a certified building commissioner. Ed Nuzzo, who replaced Landers, fared even worse, earning as low as 16 percent on the first of five required state exams. Furthermore; both oversaw senior inspector Paul Nonni, who signed off on Arista and Daigle’s buildings.
Officials deny that there has ever been an ISD problem. According to a city spokesperson, Somerville “has satisfied the requirements of the state Department of Public Safety regarding conditional appointments to the position of ISD Superintendent pending certification.” They cite a 2010 internal analysis of its inspectional services; but while that report threw low-level employees under the bus, noting that some workers dressed sloppily, there was no mention of Landers. As for Nuzzo; after failing three times, last year he was transferred to a higher paying city job.
In prior email correspondence with the Dig, a city spokesperson denied that the mayor’s administration manipulates the rules for anyone. Still, the zoning wars rage on—over a new high rise on Broadway, about plans to build a hotel in Davis Square, which Curtatone has publicly defended in bold terms. Considering the course that other projects have taken, residents don’t stand much of a chance against the city, not to mention its lawyers, the ZBA, and inspectors.
On Summer Street, abutter Nancy Iappini is relatively positive considering her situation. In her pending lawsuit, a judge has so far questioned the board’s approval of the VFW hall. After a long war with the city, developers, and Dilboy members, Iappini hopes that the courts will validate the claims she’s shouted on deaf and unhelpful municipal ears for years. “The board didn’t enforce its own rules,” she says. “What is the public supposed to do?”
UPDATE ON THE SOMERVILLE FILES
(originally published 7.24.14)
It’s too soon to tell for sure, but it appears that Somerville has taken a few turns for the better in the past couple of weeks. Since DigBoston started publishing our series on power and influence in the city of about 80,000, officials have announced plans for several municipal improvements, some of which address problems that were raised in these very pages.
Though we’ve been running every other week, for the fourth and final article, we needed a bit of an extension. For one, sources are coming out of the woodwork; furthermore, there are some seriously interesting new developments to process:
AS NOTED IN PART TWO: “GHOSTS OF ASSEMBLY SQUARE”—Somervillians have been protesting a city government that they claim has been reluctant to lean on employers at Assembly Row to hire local workers. The contention remains; last week, however, City Hall proudly announced that residents will be given preference for jobs at Odysseo, an equestrian ballet that the Canadian company Cavalia is bringing to the area for 12 weeks this fall.
OF THE SEVERAL DAMNING REVELATIONS IN PART THREE: “RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE,” few were as reckless as Somerville’s deeply compromised Inspectional Services Division. One week after that published, the city announced new ISD hours to better accommodate residents and builders, a simplified permitting process, a new code enforcement inspector, and two new clerks to streamline customer service.
AT CITY HALL, what appears to be a growing ad hoc coalition of aldermen is fighting the trend of uninhibited development in Somerville. Also to note are several sudden proposals that began rolling out this spring—first from aldermen, then from the office of Mayor Joe Curtatone—to reform campaign financing in Somerville.
JUST THIS PAST WEEK, Curtatone conceded what many have been speculating for months—that he may run for governor. It remains to be seen where he fits into the field, which could also include Martha Coakley and, possibly, even former Somerville Mayor and current U.S. Congressman Michael Capuano.
PART 4: THE MAN IN THE MAYOR SUIT
(originally published 7.31.13)
A master of straddling the legacy and future of Somerville, Joe Curtatone has won support from Winter Hill to the White House. Statewide, the five-term mayor has cultivated a favorable reputation, having been named president of the Massachusetts Mayors’ Association. Though he’s apparently run a free market City Hall in which big development is almost indiscriminately propped, Curtatone scored points with liberals at the outset of his mayorship by wrestling with Mitt Romney, and, more recently, as a vocal member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Packing those and other notable credentials, earlier this month, Curtatone announced on Facebookthat he is giving a gubernatorial run “serious consideration.” Prior to that, the revelation was the worst kept secret in state politics, with the Boston Globe and pundits galore already speculating as such. He added that he’s not yet arrived at a final decision—and is definitely still running for mayor in November—but his confidence suggests a looming climb up Beacon Hill.
Curtatone has always relied on the bosses of Old Somerville to get out his vote; at the same time, he’s basked in the limelight of hip New Somerville, its influx of young professionals and booming development. But while Curtatone is popular, his heavy-handed style has been criticized as sometimes ignoring residents in favor of political allies. As such, some previously silent skeptics appear to now be turning on him.
In an email to the Dig, a City Hall spokesperson wrote that Curtatone “appreciates informed, vigorous discussion of every matter that both branches of City government jointly address.” Still, the mayor has been mostly spoiled by a Board of Aldermen that shines his shoes. But now, things have begun to change, and an increasing number of members are willing to oppose the brass.
For this last installment of the Somerville Files, the Dig looks deeper into Curtatone’s rise and tenure, and at the current state of city politics as he eyes the top office in the Commonwealth.
KING KOTY & PRINCE JOE
Having come of age on Prospect Hill Avenue, just outside of Union Square, Curtatone was endowed at birth with what may be the most important quality in any Somerville official—he’s a native. Born in 1966, he attended Somerville High School, where the future mayor played trumpet in the jazz band and gave his all on the football team. After graduating in 1984, Curtatone went on to earn a B.A. from Boston College, and later on a barrister’s degree from the New England School of Law in 1994.
Though Curtatone briefly worked exclusively as an attorney, he entered politics in 1995, shortly after finishing law school. He had declared homestead on a residence he bought in Wakefieldmonths earlier, but as a voter, Curtatone was registered with the Somerville Election Department as a Republican living on Adams Street. When a seat opened on the Board of Aldermen, he changed his party affiliation to Democrat, and threw his hat in the ring. Neither Curtatone’s Wakefield property or homestead discrepancy came to light during the election; in turn he won, and proceeded up the Somerville ladder.
As a new alderman, Curtatone was often a strong voice against then-Mayor Michael Capuano, as well as others in powerful positions. Well-liked but perhaps somewhat naive, in 1999, Curtatone ran for mayor only to place third in the primary behind school committee members John Buonomo and Dorothy Kelly Gay, the latter of whom prevailed.
Four years later, Curtatone smartened up, and rallied support from local honchos. Most importantly, he won the allegiance of Stan Koty, a former alderman and assistant clerk for Kelly Gay. Koty had assumed control of the Somerville political machine from his former boss, State Rep. Vincent Piro, who’d been indicted decades earlier. Despite his proximity to the Piro scandal—an HBO-worthy ordeal featuring State House wiretaps and bribery—Koty managed to save face, and remains a kingmaker in city politics today.
For a GOP expat like Curtatone, Koty was a qualified booster. In 1992, the former Piro chief of staff had, against all odds, helped elect Republican Charlie Shannon—a former Belmont police officer—to represent Somerville on Beacon Hill. So in 2003, Koty turned on then-Mayor Gay, and diverted every cog in his machine toward the Curtatone camp. Aligned with the organism that had operated Somerville for two generations, Curtatone prevailed to become the second-youngest mayor in Somerville history.
As future races rolled around, the alliance with Koty continued to help Curtatone. The mayor picked up key endorsements from city stalwarts, some of whom were seemingly rewarded for their friendship. Under the mayor, Koty was put in charge of the Department of Public Works, while his son, Russell, was given a job with the Inspectional Services Division. Ed Nuzzo, who also gave to Curtatone’s 2003 campaign, was eventually named superintendent of ISD; after Nuzzo failed repeated state certification tests, Curtatone appointed him to a higher-paying city job.
Prior to his second run at mayor, Curtatone had a negative balance in his campaign account. Once in office, though, business interests would make sure that he would never again want for funds. Together, contractors contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Curtatone. The mayor has repeatedly denied that money sways City Hall; at the same time, he’s done little to avert the appearance of playing favorites. Consider Richard DiGirolamo.
As noted in previous installments of this series, the real estate attorney counts the chairman of the zoning board among his former clients, and has gained approval for projects through that board that stand in violation of municipal ordinances. On June 24—less than two weeks after the first installment was published—the Dig has now learned that DiGirolamo hosted a fundraiser for Curtatone at Del Frisco’s on the South Boston waterfront. Such upscale open bar shindigs, which suggest donations of between $150 and $500, are tradition; DiGirolamo has previously thrown at least two galas for Curtatone at the Royal Sonesta, as well as a reception last year at Hotel Marlowein Cambridge. Asked about a potential conflict of interest, a Curtatone campaign spokesman wrote in an email that “people of every demographic, occupation and persuasion get involved in politics and there’s nothing unusual about that.”
Statewide, mayoral candidates reported finishing 2011 with a total of $799,461 on hand. Other than Tom Menino in Boston, Curtatone had the largest balance of the bunch, the bulk of which over the years has come from entities with big financial stakes in Somerville. Attorneys from Palmer & Dodge, for example, gave a total of $4,000 to Curtatone in 2005; that same year, the firm was paid more than $500,000 to re-write zoning for Assembly Square—changes that were later ruled illegal by a Massachusetts land court.
That trend of developer giving has continued. The management of PT Kelley, which has won Somerville contracts worth more than $5 million in the past two years alone, donated $2,000 in 2012. Owners and associates of Design Consultants, a local traffic-engineering firm that’s banked about $1.5 million in Somerville since 2011, gave $1,400. Last year, 119 Somerville employees donated to Curtatone, though nearly half of them neglected to disclose that they work in city government. Considering his aspirations, it’s no surprise that Curtatone—currently in his fifth term—is one of the most competitive fund raisers in the Commonwealth.
In reporting that money, though, he’s been cited by the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance for irregularities on his intake and expenditure reports. In 2011, the Globe reported that Curtatone failed to list the names of 41 vendors that his campaign had paid. The mayor’s spokesperson blamed an electronic glitch. A look at the omissions, however, reveals some potentially embarrassing details—a $350 refund to a local contractor who gave over the legal limit; a $390 “meeting expense” for Patriots tickets.
Even since those problems with his 2011 filings, Curtatone has fumbled OCPF requirements. The mayor’s 2012 report, which was due in January, was only completed two weeks ago—and only after being amended three times, by order of the state, for omitting travel expenses, credit card reports, and cash reimbursements. Asked about these issues, a Curtatone campaign spokesperson wrote in an email that “amendments are fairly pro forma stuff,” and that “Mayor Curtatone is in good standing in terms of his political finance reporting.” Nevertheless, the corrected reimbursements indicate that Curtatone may even have his sights set outside of New England. In 2012, he used campaign funds to visit Washington, D.C. for a Bruins game, and to travel abroad to Tiznit—a ceremonial Somerville sister city on the coast of Morocco—where he stayed at the Hilton in Casablanca. It was his third time visiting there in four years.
SPLITTING DECISION
In late May, three aldermen spoke out about campaign financing in Somerville. Bill White put forth a proposal to limit campaign contributions—from developers who are vying to do business with the city—to $300. White, who has occasionally been skeptical of the mayor’s agenda, argued that state laws are inadequate alone in curbing the role that money plays in local politics. He explained to the media how—even with a $500 limit per donor—big developers often coax their employees and relatives into each giving the maximum, and as a result yield a “substantial influence” on elections.
White’s pitch won support from fellow aldermen Rebekah Gewirtz and Tony Lafuente, the latter of whom ran against Curtatone in 2003, and has recently taken an especially combative stance against the mayor. Days later, though, Curtatone proposed his own new guidelines that would limit contributions from developers and city workers to $250. A City Hall press release announcing the idea placed Curtatone’s name alongside all of the aldermen—except for White and the two others who supported the initial proposal for a $300 cap.
The posturing around campaign finance, while indicative of growing local skepticism about the role of development in politics, also served to highlight a burgeoning split on the board. For most of Curtatone’s reign, he’s faced little scrutiny from his legislative branch. But in recent months, as concerns about development have grown, a loose coalition of curmudgeonly aldermen have aired concerns. Among them are White and Gewirtz—long the mayor’s biggest haters—and Lafuente. Even some older, more establishment-friendly figures—namely, aldermen Dennis Sullivan and Tom Taylor—have sided with the Lafuente group on recent issues.
Meanwhile, a substantial personnel turnover has taken root. Along with Taylor, fellow aldermen Bob Trane and Bruce Desmond—who have typically backed the administration—have announced that they will leave the board this fall, while two of Curtatone’s other associates already split before fulfilling their terms.
Bill Roche, formerly the Ward 1 alderman, and Sean O’Donovan, of Ward 5, have been longtime allies of the mayor. After retiring from his career at NStar last year—and abandoning his aldermanic post—Roche was promptly picked to serve as Somerville’s director of personnel, and given a pay raise. The departure of O’Donovan in April (he told the media he plans to spend more time on his law practice, and with family) came as a bigger surprise. He’d recently anticipated running again, and was frequently mentioned as a possible successor to Curtatone.
Somerville’s charter calls for deserting aldermen to nominate their replacements—so long as less than one year remains in their term—and O’Donovan and Roche installed reliable allies. The two new aldermen—Maureen Bastardi in Ward 1 and Courtney O’Keefe in Ward 5—are now running for office with the advantage of incumbency (without having ever been elected). The fledgling anti-administration coalition stands to grow if these hand-selected surrogates lose; both Bastardi and O’Keefe’s opponents have advocated for less aggressive, more prudent development than Curtatone has pushed for.
Bastardi and O’Keefe shrug at the notion that they’re in the mayor’s pocket. In interviews with Dig, Bastardi called into question two current administration-backed building projects in her ward, while O’Keefe criticized Somerville’s much-maligned parking regulations. Still, both were put into power by staunch Curtatone allies; in Bastardi’s case, the mayor has even been helping her campaign.
So has Roche; in an apparent violation of state law, this spring, the former alderman included his name on a fundraiser invitation for Bastardi alongside Curtatone’s—even though the Commonwealth explicitly forbids such activity by non-elected municipal officials.
LET’S MOVE!
Curtatone celebrated Election Night 2012 with a few dozen of his faithful followers—college Democrats, former ISD superintendent Nuzzo, and others—at The Independent in Union Square. Charismatic as usual, at one point the mayor climbed atop a table to announce the passage of ballot referendum that enables Somerville to purchase land, with federal funding, for open space preservation and affordable housing.
“I had no doubt in these results,” shouted Curtatone, devotees cheering him on. “You know the people of Somerville and where our values stand.” Before stepping down, Curtatone gave a shout-out out to his new U.S. Senator, Elizabeth Warren. Again, the room erupted.
Meanwhile, Curtatone enjoys all-star national status. He’s visited the White House on multiple occasions, played talking head on MSNBC, and been a star participant in the First Lady’s “Let’s Move!” initiative. Armed with a Mid-Career Master’s degree from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, he’s a formidable candidate for governor—even with a mounting opposition. People like Seth Goodman, who sued the city over sketchy development decisions outlined in the first part of this series, says he “wouldn’t want a governor running the state the way [Curtatone] runs this city.” The greater public, though, appears to have a different perception.
Last month, at the Boston Park Plaza Hotel, Curtatone arrived early to celebrate the U.S. Senate victory of Ed Markey. Leading his entourage up to the most visible balcony seats, hovering just to the left of the stage, the mayor smiled, waved to friends, and embraced innumerable Democrats of note. In case Curtatone’s intentions weren’t clear enough, three weeks later, he took to social media:
“It’s flattering and humbling that people have encouraged me to consider a run for Governor,” he wrote. “I always stress that as Mayor I accomplish nothing by myself. What we’re doing in Somerville has caused widespread admiration and the credit for that belongs to all of us.”
THE DIG RESPONDS TO THE CITY OF SOMERVILLE
(originally published 1.23.14)
Between June and July of last year, DigBoston published four features in print and online collectively titled “The Somerville Files.” Researched for nearly a year by DigBoston News + Features Editor Chris Faraone and contributors Tom Nash and Adam Vaccaro, the enterprise focused on power and privilege in city operations. Nearly five months later, Somerville’s communications team returned the letter below along with an extensive list of grievances. Our response follows theirs. In addition, we have annotated their list of suggested corrections.
December 23, 2013
To Dan McCarthy, DigBoston Editor:
We are writing to respectfully request that DigBoston print this letter and the list of corrections below regarding the series titled “The Somerville Files” and also correct the articles online.
While we do have many concerns regarding what we consider to be unfounded conclusions, author opinions presented as news and hyperbolic language contained in this series, we request only that the factual record be set straight. City officials responded to each question posed by the authors to the City, but the authors neglected to ask many questions of the City or of neutral experts that would have met standards for balanced coverage. The authors also failed to include in the series answers provided by the City and others in response to questions asked that, if referenced, would have rendered some of the series’ statements as false. Finally, the authors frequently omit pertinent information or mischaracterize events depicted in the series in a false or defamatory way.
To correct the record, we ask DigBoston, as a credible media outlet, to print this note and the list of corrections below both in the next print edition of DigBoston and on the DigBoston website next to each of the series’ articles, or at the end of each online article linked to in a note published atop each online article in the series.
We will also post the requested corrections to the comments section of each article and encourageDigBoston to refrain from censoring them, and rather publish them as submitted. We encourage a speedy review of these facts. We also encourage you and other editors at DigBoston to carefully fact check and responsibly edit any further stories on this or related subjects, ensuring that the final product is truthful, responsible and appropriately labeled as either news or opinion.
Regards,
Denise Taylor, Director of Communications for City of Somerville
Jaclyn Rossetti, Deputy Director of Communications for City of Somerville
Daniel DeMaina, New Media Manager for City of Somerville
January 23, 2014
To Denise Taylor, Jaclyn Rossetti, Daniel DeMaina, and the City of Somerville:
There we were, caroling and basting Christmas turkeys, when your letter arrived. Though some of us were far away from home visiting family, our team connected briefly to discuss the blindside. A few of us wanted to cancel plans and get right to work on a rebuttal, but considering it took you nearly half-a-year to file grievances, we respectfully placed your concerns on the back burner, then began hammering away at your request after the holidays were over.
Before we saw down the trees you’ve clumsily propped up in this grand challenge, allow us to first paint the forest. One prominent point we made through much of our initial coverage is that Somerville routinely and shamelessly defends itself in the face of damning revelations, both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion. Your laundry list speaks volumes to that allegation; though you’re welcome to suggest alternative interpretations, the majority of your points are hair-splitting Hail Marys, presumably pitched by city employees who could and should have been attending to more serious matters, like those outlined in our series.
We have reviewed your arguments, and are publishing them in full, online, with responses. Nevertheless, we find it necessary to note the extraordinary resources you presumably dedicated to compiling these tenuous charges, as well as those allocated for the city’s media onslaught in general. The Somerville budget for FY14 proposes spending $269,662 on communications–an increase of more than 300 percent from FY13. That’s slightly less than a quarter of what Boston–a city roughly eight times the size of Somerville and an international news Mecca–spends on disseminating public information, and that number doesn’t even include more than $150,000 in salaries for your city’s top communications administrators.
Said publicity push has resulted in a parade of flattery, including another gushing piece on theBoston Globe op-ed page this past Saturday. Titled “Somerville–the little city that could,” the column noted that Boston “has a lot to learn from its little neighbor to the north,” and was precisely the sort of short-sighted puffery that spurred us to investigate. Considering that your city gets a free pass from most outlets, we find this attempt to discredit our reporting, which was less than cheery, to be an exercise in municipal megalomania.
Somerville is entitled to its own opinions regarding our work, but not its own facts. City officials were given ample opportunity to provide their take ahead of time. Instead, you returned answers that ignored our ugliest allegations, and parroted prescribed talking points. Now, months later, you claim we “frequently [omitted] pertinent information or mischaracterize events.” We argue the opposite–that our expansive case study reveals inherent troubles in the city’s political ecosystem. That’s just our opinion. But it’s literally based on hundreds of facts culled from thousands of documents analyzed over nearly a year of research.
Sincerely,
Team Somerville and DigBoston
ARTICLE 1
DIG: “In one case, contracts given to one design engineering firm…have been approved outside of a formal bidding process.”
CORRECTION: This is false. The contract was entered into using a formal request for proposals process (RFP). Engineering and architectural design services such as Beacon Street are exempt from both Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30B, which delineates the formal bidding process, and exempt from the state’s designer selection law, Chapter 6 section 38A1/2 – 380. Nonetheless, on Beacon Street, the City voluntarily followed the designer selection law process despite not being required to do so. Six firms responded to the request for proposals, four were interviewed before the project selection committee selected DCI.
We asked twice for all bids, contracts, and documents related to Beacon Street reconstruction (thattransactionisviewablehere). In response, we received only the documents related to DCI. After learning from a third party source that there had been other bids, and asking the city to see those as well, we were told administrators had already serviced our request. By reporting now that more companies were involved, the city concedes it did not truthfully respond to our FOIA requests.
DIG: “As the diagrams around the lunchroom also show, the lane would eliminate at least 75 spaces.”
CORRECTION: This omits the fact that well before the publication of this article, the city committed to design changes and to seek off-street parking replacement (lease from private owners, as reported in March) that would reduce the reduction in the number of parking spaces to less than 35. We are continuing to refine this design to meet the needs of the entire community based on the feedback provided at a total of seven public meetings.
At the time this feature was published, city planners had been pushed on this point over and over, by reporters (including ours) and residents alike. Still, officials refused to disclose the location of their “off-street parking replacement,” a concession that was met with moans and groans from audience members at the hearing described in our first feature. You may disagree with those concerned citizens, but we stand by our belief that their gripes warrant coverage.
DIG: “The city and state have stalled in response, mostly because of budget constraints, leaving a messy patchwork of asphalt Band-Aids and incongruous lane markers. Now, on top of that, they could lose a significant number of spaces.”
CORRECTION: This is a mischaracterization of the facts. This project remains on schedule for a full-depth reconstruction of the Beacon Street roadway, as well as below-ground infrastructure, lighting, signal timing and pedestrian and bicycle travel improvements including a cycle track. As stated above, the “75-space” loss of parking reported in the article was reduced well before the publication of this article. Fewer than 35 spaces will be removed over a half-mile stretch of road that has been shown to have more than ample parking availability. There are currently 374 parking spaces on Beacon St. in Somerville. The current goal is to maintain approximately 340. The parking study conducted by DCI never observed more than 218 cars parked in the corridor.
The wording “this project remains on schedule for a full-depth reconstruction” can literally apply to anything that stands a chance of happening sometime in the future. Various incarnations of this particular effort has been underway since at least 2009, while area commuters have been howling about the awful road conditions for longer.
DIG: “In this case, the cycle track has run afoul of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. A December 2012 DOT review of the Beacon Street plan eviscerated Somerville’s proposal. Among other shortcomings, the state cited a gauntlet of safety violations, and noted that planners neglected to address basic items like where bus stops would be situated.”
CORRECTION: This is a mischaracterization. The 25 percent design review is representative of a project that will be the first MassDOT funded and constructed cycletrack, and the cycletrack has not “run afoul” of the state. Because this is the first cycletrack to be reviewed by MassDOT, an increased number of questions and comments was expected. The City’s interaction with MassDOT is consistent with the normal review process.
The state asked for a resubmission in February. Meanwhile, the city failed to change the plans before the March 15 meeting, then resubmitted its plan to the state on May 1 with no differences. Somerville’s director of transportation admitted as much in an email to a local activist that was obtained by DigBoston.
DIG: “Despite the poor DOT evaluation, as of mid-May, Somerville had yet to submit changes to the state.”
CORRECTION: This is false. Well before the printing of this article (on Dec. 13, 2012, and also on May 1 and May 9, 2013), the City submitted changes to the State (MassDOT) based on MassDOT’s feedback as is standard, including responses regarding all project aspects including the cycletrack, which remains in the design. Again, this is the standard process and it was followed according to schedule. Per the MassDOT design review process, the City is required to submit for review designs at the 25 percent, 75 percent and 100 percent design phase. The comments made during those design phases are part of the normal review process that results in the best design for all.
See above.
DIG: “In designing the hotel for Makrigiannis, back in 2009, the firm proposed for more than 80 parking spaces along Beacon Street to be used for hotel and restaurant guests. But in engineering the cycle track, Design Consultants slated to eliminate 75 spots along the same thoroughfare—creating what amounts to a major conflict of interest.”
CORRECTION: This is not only false but recklessly mischaracterizes the facts. Design Consultants did not engineer the cycletrack. The firm provided design services for the project. Also, the 35-room hotel and restaurant design included a 28-car below-ground parking garage on site. This on-site parking fully satisfied the number of parking spaces required by ordinance and thus no on-street parking was needed. In response to a request during the public hearing process regarding the availability and use of on-street parking spaces, the applicant asked their engineer to survey the use of on-street parking and that data was provided as a courtesy so that the resident who made the request would have it. But, again, the on-street spaces were not needed and were not presented as parking for this project. It is also important to note that overnight parking is not allowed for non-residents on this section of Beacon St., and daytime parking for non-residents is restricted to 2 hours, which makes on-street parking unfeasible for overnight guests. The site does however sit a very short walk from a major transit hub, Porter Square, which has both Red Line and Commuter Rail line stops convenient for out-of-town visitors.
This “correction” is particularly disingenuous. For example, while “on-street parking” may be “unfeasible for overnight guests,” it’s more than feasible for restaurant guests and workers in general. When residents from Beacon Street and the surrounding area learn that your parking study was done merely to pander to them, we suspect they’ll be even more enraged than they already are.
DIG: “MassDOT asked for a resubmission of the plans. The city unveiled its updated design at the meeting, but the cycle track remained virtually unchanged, and stayed that way through at least May 9, when yet another set of plans was submitted.”
CORRECTION: This is a mischaracterization. MassDOT did ask for a resubmission, which again, is not unusual, but they have never asked for the cycletrack to be removed. Changes have been made to the cycletrack’s angle-point interaction with the intersections at every intersection along the route as requested by MassDOT. Again, this level of revision is normal and expected for a project of this kind and all MassDOT requests have been met on schedule.
Nowhere in this or any other story did we write or even suggest that MassDOT “asked for the cycletrack to be removed.”
DIG: “Meanwhile, residents, business owners, and even cyclists who just want Beacon Street paved are caught in the dangerous intersection of a questionable and potentially dangerous concept, the will of Somerville officials, and the greater public interest, whatever that may be.”
CORRECTION: This is both false and a mischaracterization in multiple ways. The overwhelming majority of studies on cycle tracks indicate increased safety for cyclists using cycletracks, not that they are “questionable and potentially dangerous”. A 2012 study showed cycletracks have less than one-sixth the risk compared to in-the-street bike lanes. A 2013 study showed cycletracks are effective at eliminating accidents such as riding into a car door and cyclists being hit from behind, which has the highest fatality rate of all cycling injuries. A 2009 study found that North American cyclists are eight to 30 times more likely to be seriously injured while cycling compared to cyclists in Germany, Denmark and The Netherlands, countries where cycletracks are common.
A significant number of residents—cyclists and non-cyclists alike—supported the cycle track at public meetings, via a petition conducted by Boston Cyclists Union signed by 890 residents, and in easily accessible public comments made online, but they were not given balanced representation by the DIG authors. Though cycletracks are a relatively new concept, this is an increasingly desirable safety and infrastructure feature.
Cambridge has two completed cycletracks on Vassar Street between Main Street and Audrey Street abutting the MIT campus, and on Concord Avenue between Alewife Brook Parkway and Blanchard Road. Additional tracks will be added on Western Avenue, and on Binney Street in years following. Boston has a cycletrack on Western Avenue with plans for Mt. Vernon Street in Dorchester and in the seaport district.
Numerous cycletracks are being built nationwide. Copenhagen, which already has 247 miles of internationally lauded cycletracks has announced they plan to build even more. Many cycletracks are being built without public input or discussion. The state requires only one public hearing at the 25 percent design phase (that does not need to incorporate public feedback). Somerville has held seven informational meetings and made significant changes based on resident and business feedback heard at those meetings. Along with this letter the City is submitting a list, by no means comprehensive, of over 190 cycletracks throughout the United States.
We acknowledged that some people are in support of the track, while others are not. With that said, our coverage of the Beacon Street proposal and the surrounding development and plans is by no means an indictment of all cycletracks everywhere. Just this one, for the numerous reasons mentioned in our series.
DIG: “Since developers sought to make a major change—they aimed to put a four-story structure on a narrow lot with a reduced parking exemption—they needed special permission from Somerville’s Zoning Board of Appeals to obtain a special permit for hotel use, which is prohibited in the current zoning.”
CORRECTION: This is both false and a mischaracterization. The hotel use is not prohibited in the current zoning. It is allowed with a special permit, which is not unusual. The majority of uses in Somerville’s business districts require a special permit review to make sure they fit the character of the community around them. There are other uses that are prohibited and would require a variance (not a special permit) to move forward, but a hotel is not one of them. There was no reduction in parking as the project met the Somerville Zoning Ordinance parking requirement, as noted in the above correction. The lot has an odd shape, but is not particularly narrow for this use.
We wrote “they needed special permission from Somerville’s Zoning Board of Appeals to obtain a special permit.” You claim “it is allowed with a special permit.” You’re splitting hairs. Furthermore, if you can stand in that lot, and tell constituents with a straight face that it’s a sensible place to put a hotel, then we’ll eat our reporter hats.
DIG: “A zoning board is entrusted by Mass General Law to allow special permits that do not adversely impact the surrounding community using applicable zoning codes. Part of that is, of course, asking applicants who they are, what they want to build, and if there are outstanding issues in regard to the property.”
CORRECTION: This is both false and a mischaracterization. The authors attempt to make the case in both the first and third installments of the series that personal and prior project records were not reviewed by the ZBA and that they should have been. The authors neglect to note, however, that based upon the 1970s era Massachusetts appeals court case “Dowd vs. Board of Appeals of Dover, 5 Mass App. Ct. 148 (1977),” there are specific and well-respected standards that establish what the ZBA cannot do in any case. By law, the ZBA cannot review the applicant—they may only review the project. Only the case plans, reports and findings may be considered. The law itself seems to be what should be the real concern of the authors, yet instead they make serious allegations of impropriety against the ZBA for simply adhering to existing law.
Furthermore, the authors’ description of special permits contradicts the authors’ own mischaracterization of special permits in the third article that the ZBA “has advanced projects that violate state law and city ordinances.” The authors provide no proof of those alleged violations. The ZBA has heard 527 cases since 2008, and over 800 since 2003. There have been 15 appeals in the past decade, representing less than 2 percent of all ZBA cases—roughly half of which (seven) are appeals of denials by applicants, not appeals by neighbors—and only one appeal has been decided against the city. That one decision is now being appealed to a higher court by the city.
You are essentially saying that anyone with any background can petition the ZBA under whatever name they wish, or even none at all. We suspected this was the attitude among officials, and were in part inspired to write our series as a result. In other matters, it is not up to you what “should be the real concern of the authors.” If you wanted to be writers, you should have gone into journalism instead of public relations.
DIG: “Whatever you wish to change, if you’re before the ZBA Machine it means you want to do something that requires you to bend or break existing zoning ordinances.”
CORRECTION: This is both false and a mischaracterization. As in the vast majority of cities nationwide, the Zoning Ordinance in Somerville is a product of past eras’ strategy that makes many actions require discretionary “special permits” before the ZBA. This was done this way so that a public hearing could be held and an independent Board could determine if a project meets certain expectations of the City. These expectations (called ‘findings’) must be met for a project to be approved. Applying for a special permit is NOT applying to ‘bend’ or ‘break’ the rules. Zoning laws are established to allow special permits and variances. This is the purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals, to issue decisions according to statute, ordinance and case law.
It is a process built into the ordinance/law to have an independent board hear public input, apply the law and determine if a project should go forward. The City is undertaking a comprehensive review of the zoning ordinance to provide more guidance to this process, limit certain types of applications, and let some small projects and home additions go forward without ZBA review. This will bring the zoning ordinance more in line with the City’s 2012 community-driven comprehensive plan and bring it up-to-date to current best practices for zoning.
We’re having trouble understanding your objection in this case. This could be a characterization of any zoning board, anywhere in America. There’s nothing controversial about it. If there were no need to bend, change, break, or adjust zoning for particular projects, then there would be no need for these procedures. As for “the ordinance/law to have an independent board hear public input,” one of our underlying points in this matter is that the ZBA is not quite as independent as it should be.
DIG: “For the owners of 371 Beacon St., it appears that the ZBA threw the rules in a wood chipper.”
CORRECTION: This is false. The court never entered a final judgment and the case was ultimately dismissed. There was a remaining order served that addressed adding conditions and correcting the name of the owner. The process and rules were otherwise completely upheld. The use required a special permit as nearly every use does. The applicant received that permit. That was it. No wood chipper.
We can’t believe we have to say this, but we weren’t being literal about the “wood chipper.”
DIG: “Though he’s now nearly 100 years old, George Makrigiannis has recently had several judgments issued against him for withholding tenants’ security deposits—even though former tenants of those properties tell the Dig that Louis Makrigiannis and his girlfriend, Katherine Ferrari of the aforementioned Dream City Associates, managed their deposits …This time, the board rubber-stamped Makrigiannis Fuel, LLC as the applicant of record—even though George, listed as a primary manager of the company, had by then filed for personal bankruptcy in Massachusetts. Furthermore, the ZBA did not take into account that Ferrari had been arrested for assaulting the elder Makrigiannis, a nonagenarian who increasingly appeared to be a front for the development. The assault charges, which were dropped, didn’t raise eyebrows, nor did the fact that an employee of Makrigiannis lawyer Richard DiGirolamo, Anne Vigorito, represented both development interests in 371 Beacon St., as well as those of George’s alleged attacker, Ferrari.”
CORRECTION: This omits pertinent information about what a Zoning Board of Appeals can legally consider in any application, as noted in the correction above regarding “Dowd vs. Board of Appeals of Dover, 5 Mass App. Ct. 148 (1977)”. By law, the ZBA cannot review the applicant—only the project. Only the case plans, reports and findings may be considered. The Makrigiannis family matters and all of his businesses are not legally permissible as items for review in the case. Disputes with tenants over security deposits are not legally relevant in a zoning case. The ZBA approved the case because the project met findings under the zoning ordinance. The judge never disagreed. By law, the ZBA reviews projects, not development teams.
It is astounding enough that the City of Somerville would do business with the Makrigiannis family. Dedicating time and resources to defending them–whether at the ZBA or to the press–boggles the mind completely.
DIG: “Others, in violation of a Somerville zoning ordinance, listed a nonexistent entity called ‘Beacon Street Hotel.’”
CORRECTION: This omits pertinent information about steps taken by the City after this error was discovered. The City made an error in not catching the mistake on the applicant’s name. Since that time, the City has learned from that one mistake and has changed the application form and process to ensure that applicant and owner names are listed appropriately on each application, and require applicants and owners to sign applications indicating specific rights and responsibilities. No organization is perfect and the City learns from its mistakes. Here was one oversight made followed by a corrected process to ensure that it would not happen again.
The City receives tens of thousands of pages of similar applications per year (more than 100 applications per year each often hundreds of pages long). An applicant building a new structure is likely submitting an application form, narrative, plan, drainage report, traffic study and other supporting documents. The City’s planning office has three dedicated staffers with advanced degrees who are continuously working to improve the City’s process and make sure questions that arise during the process are addressed. The City knows that applicants and abutters will not always agree, but makes sure that everyone is working from the same set of facts, and that they can make determinations on how a project may or may not meet the findings of the zoning ordinance for the special permit in question.
If you’re headed to Montreal with a brick of weed in your trunk, and the Canadian border patrol asks you to pull over, you can’t just say, “You know what–I actually don’t feel like going to Canada today.” In Somerville, though–at least according to your comments above–developers who dodge the rules can continue to operate with impunity. It is, however, reassuring that steps have since been taken to avoid such errors in the future.
DIG: “In 2013, significant city contracts are still awarded to builders and service providers that donate generously to the campaigns of Mayor Joe Curtatone and his allies.”
CORRECTION: This mischaracterizes the legal campaign contributions made by private individuals, in accordance with state law, and implies that there have been illegal breaches of the conflict of interest law. The authors fail to point to any findings by the State Ethics Commission or the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance against the City or its officials under the state’s conflict of interest law. In a related concern, the graphic accompanying this story goes so far as to cross into apparent visual libel by showing the exchange of a suitcase full of money—a very serious allegation that the authors fail to substantiate, but nonetheless indulge in. In both instances, the authors provide no proof of misconduct, yet in seemingly willful disregard of the facts, seek to imply it.
The above statement is true, on its face, like it or not. The photo, as you have correctly gleaned, is open to interpretation.
DIG: “But for those who are wired into the establishment, virtually any breach of regulations is plausible.”
CORRECTION: This is false and recklessly defamatory. The authors fail to point to any breach of regulations, let alone specify what regulations they refer to, and to posit that “any breach is plausible” is to imply a complete lack of law and order in the process, which is again, a reckless accusation.
Again. In one particular case, for example, the applicant listed a nonexistent entity on ZBA documents. As we outlined extensively, the perpetually troubled Beacon Street development process was able to chug on for years.
DIG: “Briefcases full of cash aren’t in plain view. But obvious conflicts of interest, as defined by Massachusetts General Law, are the grease that makes the wheels turn.”
CORRECTION: The “conflicts of interest” statement is false and the entire statement is recklessly defamatory. Regarding the statement of “obvious conflicts of interest, as defined by Massachusetts General Law,” the authors fail to point to any findings by the State Ethics Commission against the City under the state’s conflict of interest law. The authors also refer to “briefcases full of cash [that] aren’t in plain view” thereby seeming to imply either that they exist out of plain view or that legal contributions should be equated with illegal payoffs. Yet throughout the series they cite only legal campaign contributions available publicly on the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance’s website or provided through requests for public records. Every legal campaign contribution is in plain view.
It is a matter of fact that “briefcases full of cash aren’t in plain view.” Our point is that the subterfuge is much more nuanced, which is why we explain the elaborate contribution shell game that undermines the political process one individual donation at a time, the old-fashioned way.
DIG: “Of great help to the family in this process was their attorney, Richard DiGirolamo, whose knack for successfully shepherding extraordinary projects through the ZBA is legendary among locals. DiGirolamo is so good at his job that even Herb Foster, chairman of the ZBA, uses him as his own real estate lawyer. Foster has previously said that he believes he is able to remain impartial when his attorney has appeared before the board he heads.”
CORRECTION: This is a mischaracterization that omits pertinent information. The authors suggest that applicants go to one attorney because of his relationship with the ZBA chair. Numerous attorneys appear before the board and achieve successful results for their clients. Somerville has an obsolete, difficult to understand code that needs to be updated, refreshed and streamlined. Attorneys who have experience with the Somerville Zoning Ordinance are sought by clients who seek that expert knowledge. This is a very typical situation with boards in any city in Massachusetts.
Since first being appointed by Mayor Dorothy Kelly Gay, Herb Foster has filed three disclosures of appearance of conflict of interest regarding DiGirolamo representing Foster as an attorney in connection with real estate matters. He filed those disclosures in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268A, Section 23(b)(3) with the Somerville Law Department in 2000, 2003 and 2011.
You have further proven our point that the ZBA system is rigged against anyone other than a select few insider attorneys. Please see answer below regarding DiGirolamo and Koty. Out of curiosity, in assembling this list of suggested corrections, did the city farm some of the work out to the entities in question, or are taxpayers on the hook for that as well?
DIG: “The other force pushing the hotel along was Design Consultants, a local traffic engineering firm that serves private contracts, and also scores hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of annual business with Somerville. Like George and Louis Makrigiannis—who each donated the maximum $500 to Curtatone in 2009 and 2010—Design Consultants President David Giangrande contributes amply to the mayor, who appoints ZBA members. Curtatone has categorically denied engaging in quid pro quo dealings all throughout his career. Still, prospective and ongoing business partners donate generously.”
CORRECTION: This is a mischaracterization that omits pertinent information. The authors draw a connection between legal campaign contributions by private individuals and cases before the ZBA. The ZBA does not review applicants, as mentioned in the previous correction referencing Massachusetts appeals court case “Dowd vs. Board of Appeals of Dover, 5 Mass App. Ct. 148 (1977).”
Also, the ZBA members are independent, appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board of Aldermen for five-year terms. The ZBA has five members and two alternates. Among the combined expertise on this board are urban design, architecture, city planning, zoning law, housing, and business management. This is a very qualified cross section of people who represent the diversity of Somerville.
The ZBA does not discuss or consult with the Mayor on cases. The zoning board, whose members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board of Aldermen, does not report to the Mayor. The City’s planning staff issues a report and recommendation on individual cases to the Board.
Even this document, though, is produced by the staff without input from the Mayor. This is a public document, usually ready five days before a hearing. It is based upon an analysis of zoning findings. The Board can accept, modify or reject the contents of this report in their decision making. Legal campaign contributions, a right of any citizen, have no bearing on the ability of a project to meet the findings of the zoning ordinance.
None of which explains why there’s anything wrong with us sharing public information with readers.
DIG: “In conversations with the Dig, civil engineering experts who work in the Greater Boston area said Design Consultants wields a solid reputation; none recalled hearing anything negative about the firm. Nevertheless; the company is facing intense public scrutiny for landing deals without a formal bidding process. Since Design Consultants provides shovel-free services like surveying and traffic studies, Somerville is able to cite an exemption in state law that enables them to fatten Giangrande indiscriminately. Between 2011 and 2013, the company serviced nearly $1.5 million in city contracts.”
CORRECTION: This is a mischaracterization that omits pertinent information. See the information about the formal RFP selection process in the comment farther above. As the authors note, “Design Consultants wields a solid reputation; none recalled hearing anything negative about the firm.” Their work in Somerville, a city they are local to, has been equally exemplary. The logic purported by the authors is that hiring a qualified, certified, local firm that has a solid reputation and work history—and that has also been the only Somerville-based firm with the requisite qualifications for these projects—and using a common, usual and discriminating state-sanctioned selection process, somehow implies improper activity rather than a careful review process that gives equal access to local businesses.
In quoting our discussion with industry experts as proof that Design Consultants is a capable firm, you are showing that we did indeed present a balanced viewpoint on this matter. As for the RFP selection process, we acknowledge that Somerville is acting within the law in picking whoever it wishes, but held then and still believe that this loophole for certain types of contracts– design, architecture, etc.–is worthy of our readers’ attention. Of course, you could have also responded to our extensive FOIA inquiries on this issue from the beginning.
DIG: “Stan Koty, who was Piro’s chief of staff during his downfall over bribery charges …”
CORRECTION: This is false. Stan Koty, at the time in his early 20s, was the junior-most staffer in Piro’s office. He was not the Chief of Staff.
To minimize Koty’s role in the Piro machine as “a junior-most staffer” is disingenuous. By the time of Piro’s indictment in 1984, Koty was a 29-year-old official who had been elected to the School Committee five years earlier. When Piro was caught by undercover agents soliciting and taking bribes, Koty was subpoenaed and made to testify. Three months before the Piro indictment came down, Koty asked a state trooper to sweep Piro’s State House office for bugs. The trooper was later verbally reprimanded, though he claimed he knowingly used equipment that didn’t work. As for his official title; we regret the error, and will correct the record to reflect that Koty was merely a staffer.
DIG: “So rather than stop development in its tracks, Mystic View, FRIT, and IKEA entered mediation to determine the future of Assembly Row. In the process, all sides secured concessions, resulting in a sort of stalemate.”
CORRECTION: This is a gross mischaracterization that contradicts itself. It is not a stalemate when all sides come together and find a way to move forward, in fact this was a critical step forward that led the development to where it is today: Assembly Row is well underway, with a new MBTA stop, 2,500 new housing units, 100,000 square feet of office space and 3 million new square feet of commercial space being built right now.
Your reaction to our “stalemate” characterization is telling. Indeed, the business interests were satisfied. So were city officials, apparently. The point of our piece, however, is that residents got screwed over. As for your comments on the current state of Assembly Square, well, that’s pure spin, as current progress is later noted in our feature.
DIG: “Endorsing a plan that strapped city taxpayers with the burden—$25 million, plus interest, to be paid off over the next 30 years—Curtatone moved for the financing arrangement after FRIT, a publicly traded company worth billions, threatened to walk away from Somerville.”
CORRECTION: This is a mischaracterization that omits pertinent information. Tax revenues from the $25 million District Improvement Financing (DIF) bond for Assembly Square totaled $1 million in fiscal year 2013, a net of $500,000 after paying the debt service on that bond. And DIF revenues are projected to not only cover the cost of borrowing completely over time, but an estimated $47.8 million in additional yearly tax revenues for both the City of Somerville and the state is expected at full build out. In fact, the increase in commercial taxes collected from Assembly Row is in large part the reason why the residential tax burden will be lowered in FY2014. In other words—city taxpayers are not burdened but are already reaping benefits and are poised to reap significantly more. The revenues from the new development created by the DIF bond are paying down the cost of borrowing.
The DIF bond was not the result of a threat, but a unique tri-party agreement between the City, state and developer in the face of the Great Recession, which put plans for Assembly Square more than $50 million in the hole. A $25 million Congressional earmark for the MBTA station evaporated with the recession, and a permit time extension for IKEA at the state level delayed $20 million of $25 million in I-Cube bonds that would have reimbursed the cost of public infrastructure expenses as part of the first phase of construction, and also would have provided resources for the second phase of public infrastructure construction. Without these funds, FRIT’s pro forma no longer worked and the project was at-risk for significant delay.
In the face of that problem, the tri-party agreement between City, state and developer shared the financial responsibilities of revitalizing this area and creating a new neighborhood. This agreement required all three players to make good on their commitments. The City agreed to fund the $25 million for public infrastructure, funded through the DIF bond. The state agreed to fill the remaining $18 million gap needed to build the first new MBTA subway station since 1987, plus up to $2.86 million in additional state grants, if needed. FRIT agreed to fund its $15 million obligation for the T station and would be held responsible—if FRIT failed to complete the shell and core buildings in Development Blocks 1, 2 and 3 by spring of 2013, FRIT would reimburse the City for $15 million disbursed by the DIF bond at that point and not go to market for the remaining $10 million.
If you put it that way, we regret only reporting that “city taxpayers” will be footing the bill. We should have reported that both state and city taxpayers would be on the hook for infrastructure costs that should have been incurred by developers.
DIG: “There’s also a showdown brewing over local jobs, as storefronts like Starbucks and Burger Dive are already up-and-running, and with multiplex and other large buildings in the works. A city spokesperson tells the Dig that “the Mayor has taken every available legal and legislative route to cultivate an environment in Somerville that benefits local workers.” Still, his administration spoke in support of FRIT’s hiring practices to the Somerville Journal—even as residents picketed the project over the lack of local jobs in its development thus far.”
CORRECTION: This omits pertinent information. First, FRIT does not hire for businesses at Assembly Row, the tenants hire employees for their business. As the City’s Legal Department informed the Board of Aldermen in 2011, local hiring preferences violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. Such local hiring preferences have been successfully challenged in court by developers in Fall River, Taunton and Quincy, and those communities have paid tens of thousands of dollars in settlements to those developers.
In lieu of that route, for the private business projects at Assembly Row, Mayor Curtatone has continued his vocal advocacy for local jobs and has met, is meeting and will continue to meet with local workers and place his full support behind them. The Mayor and the Board of Alderman want to make sure that every Somerville resident who needs or wants a job has first access to interviews at Assembly Square and also to job training and other workforce development support. The City is encouraging every new business in Assembly Row to give residents first access when hiring. Meanwhile, the Jobs Advisory Committee formed by Mayor Curtatone spent the bulk of the past year conducting a local jobs and workforce development needs assessment for the entire City, and recently announced their findings and new workforce development initiatives.
It’s clear in our writing that we were referring to FRIT’s hiring of local construction workers–not the retail employees of their tenants. On hiring in general, we have since observed (and even acknowledged) that the city has built efforts to hire Somerville residents.
DIG: “Shortly after IKEA backed away from the parcel last year (the Swedish company maintains ownership, but will not develop a store there), FRIT announced intentions to build a single-story supermarket on the grounds—a proposal that would again require a new zoning initiative. After spending more than a decade fighting over best uses for Assembly, Mystic View members argue that the store should serve as the first floor of a larger building that includes revenue-driving office space. Activists say that FRIT’s proposal serves as a reminder about whose corner Curtatone stands in; in response, city spokesperson Denise Taylor tells the Dig that the “one-story grocery store proposal has not moved forward because we are confident this plan will improve, thanks to the very helpful public comments so far and our goal of finding more creative and innovative plans for this space.” Still, the agenda for a public meeting to discuss the project in July refers to the development as a “ground-floor supermarket.” … From Mystic View’s perspective, the supermarket issue rings familiar, with City Hall apparently petitioning for short-term solutions that benefit developers more than residents.”
CORRECTION: This omits pertinent information. FRIT filed a zoning amendment to allow a supermarket. It is important to note that the City is required to hear every proposal, but the granting of that required hearing in no way indicates support or lack of support; it is simply required procedure. As for FRIT’s proposed zoning amendment, it would have allowed a supermarket of 50,000 square feet or greater on the ground floor of a building located on the former IKEA site. It would not have precluded a developer from building additional space for other uses above that ground-floor supermarket. If such an amendment had been approved, the project would still have required a special permit review by the Somerville Planning Board. At the time of this story’s printing, the grocery store proposal still had not moved forward, as the zoning amendment was currently before the Board of Aldermen, which was engaging in a prudent, thoughtful debate. After the publication of this article, the proposal was withdrawn, which is what we indicated was expected to the authors. Our goal is to ensure that any project includes creative and innovative plans that fit the vision for the area. The evolution of such plans does not happen in vacuum. It happens after public debate and prudent review.
Further, the revitalization of Assembly Row is anything but a short-term solution; rather, it is a long-term plan that will create a new mixed-use, walkable, bikeable and transit-oriented urban neighborhood that expands the city’s tax base and relieves residents of the property tax burdens they currently face. Over $2 million in new growth revenue during fiscal 2013 came from Assembly Square, and that is just the beginning.
The issue here, as demonstrated in your lack of identifying a single demonstrably false statement, appears to be that you don’t like our accounting of events, extensive as they are. By claiming we’ve omitted “pertinent information,” you are attempting to further marginalize the generally powerless residents and watchdogs whose voices were reflected, to your apparent dislike, in our series.
ARTICLE 3
DIG: “With its rubber stamps, the ZBA has advanced projects that violate state law and city ordinances.”
CORRECTION: This is false and the authors provide no evidence of any violation of state law or city ordinances. The ZBA has heard 527 cases since 2008, and more than 800 since 2003. There have been 15 appeals in the past decade—roughly half of which (seven) are appeals of denials by applicants, not appeals by neighbors—and only one appeal has been decided against the city. That one decision is now being appealed to a higher court by the city, meaning more than 99.8% of cases have been upheld. This is generally considered an excellent track record.
From two paragraphs after the line you quote: “In one instance, Foster raised ethical issues for accepting $1,600 in donations for the charity he runs from former Alderman Sean O’Donovan, and then voting in favor of a highly contested condo conversion of O’Donovan’s that DiGirolamo brought to the ZBA. The chairman also beckoned watchdogs by—after recusing himself—successfully appealing his own board for a special permit that effectively increased the value of a property he owned on Cross Street.”
DIG: “Whatever you wish to change, if you’re before the ZBA Machine it means you want to do something that requires you to bend or break existing zoning ordinances.”
CORRECTION: This is false. As in the vast majority of cities nationwide, the Zoning Ordinance in Somerville is a product of a common, decades-old zoning practice that makes many actions require discretionary “special permits” before the ZBA. This long-established approach was designed this way so that a public hearing could be held and an independent Board could determine if a project meets certain expectations of a City. These expectations (called ‘findings’) must be met for a project to be approved. Applying for a special permit is NOT applying to ‘bend’ or ‘break’ the rules. Zoning laws are established to allow special permits and variances. This is the purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals, to issue decisions according to statute, ordinance and case law. It is a process built into the ordinance/law to have an independent board hear public input, apply the law and determine if a project should go forward.
The City is undertaking a comprehensive review of the zoning ordinance to provide more guidance to this process, limit certain types of applications, and let some small projects and home additions go forward without ZBA review. This will bring the zoning ordinance more in line with the City’s 2012 community-driven comprehensive plan and bring it up-to-date to current best practices for zoning.
You say “special permits” and “variances.” We say “bend or break.” You say, “This is false.” We say, “Are you prepared to explain to taxpayers why the city is paying employees to critique the words choices of local journalists?”
DIG: “One builder, for example, has been permitted to keep working in the city despite leaving behind a trail of litigated money pits.”
CORRECTION: This omits pertinent information. Again under Massachusetts appeals court case “Dowd vs. Board of Appeals of Dover, 5 Mass App. Ct. 148 (1977)” there are specific and well- respected standards that establish what the ZBA cannot do in any case. By law, the ZBA cannot review the applicant—only the project. The ZBA reviews projects, not development teams. If the applicant is a great friend, or the applicant is a criminal, it does not matter. By law, only the case plans, reports and findings may be considered.
You would think that since the City of Somerville is prohibited by “Dowd vs. Board of Appeals of Dover, 5 Mass App. Ct. 148 (1977)” from acknowledging the performance history of would-be developers, that you’d be thanking DigBoston for publishing such details for all to see.
DIG: “During the ordeal on Summer Street, Arista and Daigle continued doing other business in Somerville, and completed four buildings with an unusual number of code defects. A property of theirs on Broadway in West Somerville had a lien placed on it after a county judge found that condominiums they built and sold there had crossed gas lines, buckling floors, improperly functioning furnaces, and an improperly installed roof. According to court documents, two of Arista’s and Daigle’s buildings on Osgood Street also needed repairs costing tens of thousands of dollars—conditions included a leaky roof, and windows that had not been installed properly.”
CORRECTION: This omits pertinent information. To consider this information as a part of a zoning review would violate the provisions of Dowd vs. Dover, as noted above, and likely violate constitutional rights of equal protection and due process.
As noted above, it’s harrowing to think of who and what entities may be doing business in your city under the current protocol in which anyone, regardless of their track record in Somerville or anywhere else, can build whatever they want, however they want, wherever they want so long as they hire an attorney who is well-versed in the city’s arcane zoning code.
DIG: “As DigBoston has revealed over the past month, certain companies can seemingly build anything in Somerville if the proper levers are aligned, and the appropriate cogs are greased.”
CORRECTION: The authors’ statement that companies can “seemingly build anything” in Somerville is false and the “cogs are greased” statement is recklessly defamatory. Special permits are capped by a density metric (lot area per unit), as well as setback and height requirements. These numbers can only be waived by a variance, and variances (which are very different than special permits) are rarely granted by the ZBA. For example, regarding the density metric, there has been one density metric variance for one unit that has been granted in the last five years. Recently staff recommended a parking variance on an East Somerville project—neighbors disagreed, and the ZBA made the applicant fit the parking onto the plan. In the past two years, the ZBA has approved 15 variances: six from the ordinance’s outdated parking requirements and nine for various dimensional variances based on unique lot conditions. (Somerville does not allow use variances.) Within the density, height, parking and setback envelope allowed by special permit, typically the staff works with an applicant to get a superior urban design for a project.
Also, the authors repeatedly allege a pay-to-play environment exists in Somerville while never pointing to any illegal campaign contribution activity or acknowledging that campaign contributions are protected as a constitutional right. They also neglect to mention that Mayor Curtatone, along with most of the Board of Alderman, recently proposed the most restrictive campaign finance legislation in the City’s history that goes far beyond the contribution restrictions imposed by the state. The only time they mention this legislation is a note in the Wed., July 24, issue of Dig Boston when they attempt to take credit for this legislation by implying it occurred in response to this series. It most certainly did not. The legislation was proposed before the series began.
ZBA approved 15 variances in the past two years: six were variances from our outdated parking requirements and the other nine were various dimensional variances based on unique lot conditions. Somerville does not allow use variances.
Let’s take another look at one proposal that was headed toward ZBA approval before community watchdogs got in the way: “Then there’s the curious case of Sal Querusio, a sometimes city contractor and former ZBA member who gave $250 to Foster’s daughter for her 2005 run for an alderman seat. In 2008, Querusio applied to build a private senior housing complex on Park Street. But when he proposed squeezing 89 units onto a lot permitting less than half that many—seeking new zoning that reduced the minimum square footage of for-profit senior units—abutters whipped into a frenzy. After activists revealed that he neglected to disclose that he had served with the majority of sitting ZBA members—a violation of state law—Querusio withdrew his plan.”
DIG: “One such all-star is local real estate attorney Richard DiGirolamo. With DiGirolamo’s guidance, several applicants appear to have manipulated the ZBA, which typically rewards approval to even his most controversial and unscrupulous clients … ZBA Chairman Herb Foster even votes on cases that are brought before the board by DiGirolamo, who served as his real estate attorney for years. Asked about a potential conflict of interest, Foster has claimed that there is none—even though DiGirolamo, who faces the ZBA several dozen times a year, helped the chairman win board approval for a condo conversion in 2003.”
CORRECTION: This is a mischaracterization that omits pertinent information. In the past, Foster filed a disclosure of appearance of conflict of interest regarding DiGirolamo representing Foster as an attorney in connection with real estate matters. He filed that disclosure in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268A, Section 23(b)(3) with the Somerville Law Department in 2000 and 2003 during Mayor Dorothy Kelly Gay’s administration. In 2011, Foster filed a revised disclosure, writing, “I am informed that current Mayor Joseph Curtatone does not have a copy of any of these disclosures. In order to alleviate any concerns, I am now filing a revised disclosure with Mayor Curtatone.”
The authors suggest that applicants go to one attorney because of his relationship with the ZBA chair. Numerous attorneys appear before the board and achieve successful results for their clients. Somerville has an obsolete, difficult to understand code that needs to be updated, refreshed and streamlined. Attorneys who have experience with the Somerville Zoning Ordinance are sought by clients who seek that expert knowledge. This is a very typical situation with boards in any city in Massachusetts.
Finally, once again the authors imply that the ZBA has the ability to decide cases based on the applicant rather than the law. As stated above several times, the law forbids this. Only the project may be considered, not the applicant. If the law is of concern to the authors, the law should be addressed by the authors, not those who must follow it to the letter.
In your words: “Somerville has an obsolete, difficult to understand code that needs to be updated, refreshed and streamlined. Attorneys who have experience with the Somerville Zoning Ordinance are sought by clients …” Maybe if the city spent less on flacks and more on streamlining procedures, they could make that happen sooner rather than later.
DIG: “Then there’s the curious case of Sal Querusio, a sometimes city contractor and former ZBA member who gave $250 to Foster’s daughter for her 2005 run for an alderman seat. In 2008, Querusio applied to build a private senior housing complex on Park Street. But when he proposed squeezing 89 units onto a lot permitting less than half that many—seeking new zoning that reduced the minimum square footage of for-profit senior units—abutters whipped into a frenzy. After activists revealed that he neglected to disclose that he had served with the majority of sitting ZBA members—a violation of state law—Querusio withdrew his plan.
CORRECTION: This omits pertinent information. The ZBA by law is required to accept applications for review regardless of the source. The authors imply that the Board was likely to approve Mr. Querusio’s project in 2008 despite an undisclosed conflict. But the story misses the simple fact that the ZBA never approved that project, and there is no evidence to suggest that they were going to do so. The ZBA process is designed to allow public input before a decision is rendered. That’s what happened here. But the fact that an application was submitted does not imply imminent approval. This site today is the site of a daycare approved by the ZBA with significant support from the abutters.
We wrote “Querusio withdrew his plan.” You claim “the story misses the simple fact that the ZBA never approved the project.” That’s obvious. If you’re implying that it’s in the realm of possibility for board members to approve plans that are withdrawn, then you’ve less faith in the ethics of its members than we do. In short: the point of the anecdote is that the conflict of interest would have gone unnoticed if not for the work of community activists.
DIG: “The rift began in 2002, when businessmen Roberto Arista and Marc Daigle purchased a small parcel at 353 Summer St. Since the area is zoned for seven apartments, the partners raised concerns with their proposing to build twice that many units there. First, an orthodontist who lives next door sued their company, then known as Emerald Development Group, saying the plans called for digging underneath his building. The neighbor lost, but Emerald—which changed its name to Dakota Partners—soon ran into another hurdle when the city stopped them from removing a tree. Arista and Daigle then sued Somerville for blocking their development, and in 2009 were granted an economic “hardship” extension by the ZBA. Abutters then grew even more suspicious after the mysterious disappearance of tape from a past ZBA meeting in which Assistant City Solicitor Shapiro told members that applicants couldn’t keep returning for extensions. In response, neighbors sued the city, arguing that the board’s reasoning was bogus. The court agreed.”
CORRECTION: This omits pertinent information. The authors attempt to create a perception that the City was doing everything to help Emerald Development at the shaft site with their 2002 plan, under the Kelly Gay administration, but if that is the case, why did the developer have to sue the administration in 2008 when the Mayor refused to let them remove a street tree? The reality is that each individual regulation in the City has been fairly applied to this development. They have won some and lost some. Assistant City Solicitor David Shapiro originally told the ZBA members that the applicant could only receive one extension of a special permit, as indicated in the Somerville Zoning Ordinance. The next day, he sent an email with additional legal guidance, stating that more than one extension was permissible, in accordance with an Attorney General opinion. That email has been included with this letter.
What you’re attempting to do here is put words in our mouth–“The authors attempt to create a perception …”–and then debunk us on your terms. We explained the situation in great detail. Those things considered, we do not believe a further response is in order.
DIG: “The new arrangement was bulletproof. At the ZBA, DiGirolamo had an approving City Hall on his side; Somerville’s planning director at the time, Monica Lamboy, went so far as to tout the project as a desperately needed “mixed use” development that could help veterans. In turn, the city pitted abutters against veterans.”
CORRECTION: This is a mischaracterization that omits pertinent information. The article talks much about the Dilboy project, but not why the City might want such a project. The project is generally consistent with citywide goals as outlined in the community-driven SomerVision plan, creating 31 residential units (later reduced to 29 after neighborhood input) within 1/4 mile of transit. It also included a new VFW post on commercially zoned land. That is mixed-use and it is smart-growth. The plan was also based upon the conclusion of a mediation process funded by the City and attended by the developer and neighbors. After the developer redesigned the project to address neighbor concerns, some neighbors backed out of the mediation and appealed the final project. Abutter’s concerns are a common element in development everywhere especially when residences abut commercially zoned areas as in this case, and the City used due diligence to mediate between both sides.
The Dilboy issue is a complicated one, and we went to great lengths in explaining the ongoing situation in detail. As to your taking issue with our characterization of matters, your real problem appears to be that much of that detail was paid to abutters, and to the documents and observations of those whose views are not consistent with SomerVision plans. What you’re doing here is an act of public relations, and you’re doing it on the Somerville payroll.
DIG: “The zoning process calls for the results of environmental tests to be disclosed to the board. Arista and Daigle had commissioned such tests on their lot—the site of a former gas station—with some results indicating possible contamination. Those reports, however, were kept concealed until residents spoke out at a ZBA hearing. Despite an apparent violation, the board voted to allow Daigle and Arista to withdraw their plans without prejudice, and to re-submit their application soon after.”
CORRECTION: This is a mischaracterization. The authors discuss a missing environmental report. The state DEP office oversees cleanup of contamination. Projects do not generally get financed unless lenders see reports that show sites are clean or can be cleaned. So, even if the City is missing such a report, there is no environmental risk, as the project would not move forward without it. The applicant did fail with the first application to submit to the City a report about the shaft site. When the Board found that reports were missing, they required the applicant to reapply with the full application, which the applicant did. It is worth noting that the report that had been omitted from the initial application determined that there was no reportable contamination on the lot in question.
Please note the extent to which you are not only defending, but spending time and resources defending a development entity that seemingly attempted to cut corners and bury inconvenient revelations until community watchdogs–not the city–made light of apparent inconsistencies.
DIG: [Statement accompanied by image of Dept. of Public Safety letter.] George Landers, who served in the position from 2004 to 2010, never passed state tests to become a certified building commissioner.
CORRECTION: The accompanying image for this statement is misleading as is the statement itself. The image features a pullout quote that implies that Mr. Landers was in violation of state law. He was not, as two later appeals extended the state’s approval of his conditional appointment through late 2009 after which he resigned. The letter posted with the story was mid-process and rendered moot by later decisions, which the authors neglected to report. Mr. Landers was in compliance with Dept. of Public Safety guidelines and thus state law at all times. Mr. Landers also passed 3 of 5 tests required for certification before resigning.
He was in compliance, yes, but he was not certified. That is a fact.
DIG: “Furthermore; both oversaw senior inspector Paul Nonni, who signed off on Arista and Daigle’s buildings.”
CORRECTION: This omits pertinent information and context. The authors attempt to make a case that Somerville was without the required certified official needed to competently sign off on projects of this nature. They fail to note that Paul Nonni, who was overseen by Landers and Nuzzo, had the highest certification given in Massachusetts, and is a certified building official with a statewide reputation as one of the best in this field, and that all projects requiring this level of certification were reviewed and signed off by this exceptionally qualified individual.
We are at a loss in trying to imagine how a city of Somerville’s size finds it appropriate to have uncertified supervisors running any kind of inspections department, regardless of who they’re overseeing.
DIG: “They cite a 2010 internal analysis of its inspectional services; but while that report threw low-level employees under the bus, noting that some workers dressed sloppily, there was no mention of Landers.”
CORRECTION: This is a mischaracterization. Since taking office, Mayor Curtatone and his administration have made extraordinary strides in improving services and departments citywide and the 2010 ISD report, which was designed to create a roadmap for improvements, is just one of these efforts. At the time the report was published, ISD had just hired a new superintendent. The forward-looking report was designed to bring the office into the 21st century and the City has been working toward these goals since. The report did not address former superintendents. That would be pointless.
So you’re telling us that a review of an office that’s functions include preventing buildings from collapsing shouldn’t address past failures? We surmise that residents who bought homes in said buildings would disagree. If municipal authorities believe such a review shouldn’t mention said leadership, that’s a shocking thing to admit.
DIG: “Still, the zoning wars rage on—over a new high rise on Broadway, about plans to build a hotel in Davis Square, which Curtatone has publicly defended in bold terms.”
CORRECTION: This omits pertinent information and misrepresents the project on Broadway. The proposed building on Broadway is not a high-rise. The standard definition of high-rise is 115 to 328 feet or 12-to-39 stories tall. The four-story building being proposed on Broadway is far below the height, floor area ratio, lot coverage, setbacks and other maximums allowed under the zoning ordinance. It is opposed by two neighboring families, one other individual in the surrounding neighborhood, and a resident who lives on the other side of Somerville and attends most ZBA meetings and opposes most larger projects reviewed by the board. Others in the neighborhood have testified in favor of this project and there has been significant public interest expressed in support of the revitalization of this area—neither of which were given balanced coverage by the authors. This project is also before the Planning Board, not the ZBA, and the Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the project, which includes 46 housing units including 6 permanently affordable units and five groundfloor retail spaces.
The possibility of a hotel in Davis Square was envisioned many years ago and the Board of Aldermen has voted in the past to support the hotel use on that parcel. Currently, the City is conducting an interactive planning process that addresses Davis Square as a whole and that has been very well received by the community. The possibility of a hotel and its siting in the square but not necessarily on this lot is being assessed as a part of this process.
Like in other cases, we acknowledged that people stand on both sides of this issue. Our point is that while the city spends hundreds of thousands of dollars pushing its own points of view, those who oppose are drowned out. That’s where we come in. As for your definition of “high-rise,” we see that it is different from ours. Silly of us to describe the proposal in comparison to what already exists in Davis Square. For the record, though, it is reassuring to know officials would probably reject a 39-story skyscraper over Davis.
DIG: “Considering the course that other projects have taken, residents don’t stand much of a chance against the city, not to mention its lawyers, the ZBA, and inspectors.”
CORRECTION: This is false and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the compromises and collaboration required of all—the City, residents, businesses and developers—when any project, no matter how popular, is considered here, or anywhere. The City goes well beyond requirements in its many efforts to involve everyone in planning decisions whether for roads, parks, buildings, businesses or whole neighborhoods. To give an example, to date, seven public meetings on the cycle track were held and significant changes were incorporated based on public feedback, while in Cambridge, no such series of meetings was held before their tracks were built. Community concerns have halted or altered numerous projects in Somerville, including the Porter Square Visioning project (which resulted in no action because residents wanted the area unchanged), the Lincoln Park ice rink (which was requested by some residents but ultimately rejected by the larger community) and the original design of the cycle track, which was greatly altered in response to community concerns—not to mention Assembly Row, which took its current form due to grassroots efforts (that Mayor Curtatone embraced). The authors imply that because some residents don’t get exactly what they want, the process is corrupt or broken. It would be easier of course if everyone always agreed, but the healthy reality is that there is always debate, and that debate has continually improved outcomes in Somerville, which is why the city is so lauded in so many ways (as the authors note in the opening of their first story). Residents are not ‘against’ the City. They are an active part of shaping the present and planning for the future.
Fine. Let’s look at the cycle track. At the meetings we attended, one of which we illustrated in our first piece and published photos from, residents were outraged not at the mere proposals themselves, but by the city’s apparent reluctance to acknowledge their grievances from past meetings. For example, public transportation issues had not been addressed, while Somerville spokespeople declined to specify the location of the aforementioned private parking spaces the city is allegedly acquiring. As for your claim that we suggest “because some residents don’t get exactly what they want, the process is corrupt or broken,” you’re conveniently missing the point that the city is reluctant to acknowledge inconvenient truths and discrepancies raised by residents, and in some cases, like in that of the Dilboy and of this exchange herein, that the city is willing to invest extraordinary resources into silencing.
DIG: “Though he’s apparently run a free market City Hall in which big development is almost indiscriminately propped, Curtatone scored points with liberals at the outset of his mayorship by wrestling with Mitt Romney, and, more recently, as a vocal member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.”
CORRECTION: The authors’ statement “big development is almost indiscriminately propped” is false. The City follows the formal bidding and additional selection processes as required by state law, and in some cases follows those processes voluntarily, even though they may be exempt, such as the engineering and architectural design services on Beacon Street.
The ZBA members are independent, appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board of Aldermen for five-year terms. The ZBA has five members and two alternates. Among the combined expertise on this board are urban design, architecture, city planning, zoning law, housing, and business management. This is a very qualified cross section of people who represent the diversity of Somerville.
The ZBA does not discuss or consult with the Mayor on cases. The zoning board, whose members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board of Aldermen, does not report to the Mayor. The City’s planning staff issues a report and recommendation on individual cases to the Board. Even this document, though, is produced by the staff without input from the Mayor. This is a public document, usually ready five days before a hearing. It is based upon an analysis of zoning findings. The Board can accept, modify or reject the contents of this report in their decision making.
The ZBA has heard 527 cases since 2008, and over 800 since 2003. There have been 15 appeals in the past decade, representing less than 2 percent of all ZBA cases—roughly half of which (seven) are appeals of denials by applicants, not appeals by neighbors—and only one appeal has been decided against the city. That one decision is now being appealed to a higher court by the city. The authors provide no basis for their erroneous and reckless assertion that “big development is almost indiscriminately propped.”
We are well aware of how the ZBA is supposed to operate. In a sense, our entire series is an extensively sourced rebuke of our contention that “big development is almost indiscriminately propped” in Somerville. Rather than reiterate here, please refer to all four installments.
DIG: “Still, the mayor has been mostly spoiled by a Board of Aldermen that shines his shoes. But now, things have begun to change, and an increasing number of members are willing to oppose the brass.”
CORRECTION: This statement, is opinion not fact, and should be identified as such. The form of government established in Somerville, as in many mid-to-large-sized U.S. cities, is known as the Strong-Mayor form of municipal government, but this in no way implies that the Board does not play a critical role in proposing, debating, amending and approving City legislation and the City budget. Rigorous debate and differences of opinion between members of the board as well as between Board members and all administrations are commonplace and welcomed by all and there has been no marked fluctuation of this in any direction. All are free to draw their own opinions about this process, but to include this in a “news” story that is not labeled as an opinion piece is inappropriate and misleading.
We are an alternative publication. We strive to present the sides of stories that are not being told elsewhere. In the case of Somerville, the city’s extensive public relations operation has helped catapult Mayor Curtatone and the city into a positive light. Though we note his success and popularity, this is not that story.
DIG: “He had declared homestead on a residence he bought in Wakefield months earlier, but as a voter, Curtatone was registered with the Somerville Election Department as a Republican living on Adams Street. When a seat opened on the Board of Aldermen, he changed his party affiliation to Democrat, and threw his hat in the ring. Neither Curtatone’s Wakefield property or homestead discrepancy came to light during the election; in turn he won, and proceeded up the Somerville ladder.”
CORRECTION: This misrepresents the facts; there is no discrepancy as the authors claim. Mass. General Laws Chapter 188, Section 5 states that a declaration of a homestead “shall state that each person named therein occupies or intends to occupy the home as their principal residence.” A Somerville resident at the time, Mayor Curtatone was planning to marry and move with his then-fiancée and now-wife Nancy to Wakefield after the wedding. That changed when he decided to run for office. Mayor Curtatone has lived in Somerville his entire life. This subject did come to light during the campaign, contrary to the authors’ claim, during a candidates’ forum and was addressed by Mayor Curtatone at that time.
By “discrepancy,” we meant that on one form, he said he lived in one place, while on another form, he claimed to live in another. That’s what we meant by “discrepancy.”
DIG: “Despite his proximity to the Piro scandal—an HBO-worthy ordeal featuring State House wiretaps and bribery—Koty managed to save face, and remains a kingmaker in city politics today … In 1992, the former Piro chief of staff had, against all odds, helped elect Republican Charlie Shannon—a former Belmont police officer—to represent Somerville on Beacon Hill.”
CORRECTION: This misrepresents the facts. Koty was not implicated in any way in Piro’s alleged misconduct. Furthermore, Stan Koty, at the time in his early 20s, was the junior-most staffer in Piro’s office. He was not the Chief of Staff.
As stated above: To minimize Koty’s role in the Piro machine as “a junior-most staffer” is disingenuous. By the time of Piro’s indictment in 1984, Koty was a 30-year-old official who had been elected to the School Committee five years earlier. When Piro was caught by undercover agents soliciting and taking bribes, Koty was subpoenaed and made to testify. Three months before the Piro indictment came down, Koty asked a state trooper to sweep Piro’s State House office for bugs. The trooper was later verbally reprimanded, though he claimed he knowingly used equipment that didn’t work. As for his official title; we regret the error, and will correct the record to reflect that Koty was merely a staffer.
DIG: “As future races rolled around, the alliance with Koty continued to help Curtatone. The mayor picked up key endorsements from city stalwarts, some of whom were seemingly rewarded for their friendship. Under the mayor, Koty was put in charge of the Department of Public Works, while his son, Russell, was given a job with the Inspectional Services Division. Ed Nuzzo, who also gave to Curtatone’s 2003 campaign, was eventually named superintendent of ISD; after Nuzzo failed repeated state certification tests, Curtatone appointed him to a higher-paying city job.”
CORRECTION: This omits pertinent information. Russell Koty wasn’t “given” a job. He was hired in an open process as the best candidate for his position in 2010. Many residents and local business owners donate to the Mayor’s campaign, which is their constitutional right. To imply that a donation by Ed Nuzzo in 2003 bought him a job seven years later in 2010—a job that the Dept. of Public Safety itself noted in writing to Nuzzo that “you meet or exceed the qualifications for this position”—is a flimsy accusation without basis.
After resigning from ISD, Nuzzo asked to return to his former position as capital projects manager. That capital projects manager position was already slated for a salary adjustment as part of the citywide salary adjustment approved by the Board of Alderman for all full-time non-union staff to compensate for five years without cost of living increases or salary increases of any kind as well furloughs during the Great Recession. The salaries approved for both ISD superintendent and the capital projects manager position were actually set at the same grade. The new ISD superintendent came in at the first step per the city’s salary schedule and Nuzzo was credited with longevity steps. In other words, Nuzzo would have received that additional longevity pay in either position with the same base salary in either position.
He got a job. In order for that, wouldn’t somebody have to have given him a job? As for Nuzzo … we are neither surprised nor relieved to learn that, under the current Somerville system, the superintendent of ISD who failed repeated state certification tests would have been given a promotion under any circumstances whatsoever.
DIG: “Together, contractors contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Curtatone.”
CORRECTION: This omits pertinent information. The authors fail to note that these donations are a total sum over more than a decade, and they neglect to report that the majority of Mayor Curtatone’s contributions come from individuals.
We’re not sure why city employees are accounting for Mayor Curtatone’s finances. Even in exchanging emails with DigBoston last year for our initial stories, Somerville spokespeople directed us to the mayor’s campaign. Since that policy appears to be no longer–now, it seems, taxpayers foot the entire bill for the media operation–we will ourselves respond by pointing to another party, the Office of Campaign & Political Finance, where residents and readers can peruse the mayor’s contributions and see just how friendly contractors have been through the years.
DIG: “The mayor has repeatedly denied that money sways City Hall; at the same time, he’s done little to avert the appearance of playing favorites.”
CORRECTION: This mischaracterizes the legal campaign contributions made by private individuals, in accordance with state law, and implies that there have been illegal breaches of the conflict of interest law. The authors fail to point to any findings by the State Ethics Commission against the City under the state’s conflict of interest law.
Also, in addition to highly praised management of the City for more than a decade, which would be impossible in a system driven by the kind of pay-to-play environment the authors repeatedly allege, the Mayor proposed, along with most of the Board of Alderman, the most restrictive campaign finance rules in the City’s history.
As we we reported in a late-July follow-up to our series (italics added here to emphasize the timing of Mayor Curtatone’s proposal: “At City Hall … [there] are several sudden proposals that began rolling out this spring—first from aldermen, then from the office of Mayor Joe Curtatone—to reform campaign financing in Somerville.”
DIG: “Consider Richard DiGirolamo. As noted in previous installments of this series, the real estate attorney counts the chairman of the zoning board among his former clients, and has gained approval for projects through that board that stand in violation of municipal ordinances.”
CORRECTION: Once again, as pointed out in numerous corrections above, this is a mischaracterization. As in the vast majority of cities nationwide, the Zoning Ordinance in Somerville is a product of past eras strategy that makes many actions require discretionary “special permits” before the ZBA. This was done this way so that a public hearing could be held and an independent Board could determine if a project meets certain expectations of the City. These expectations (called ‘findings’) must be met for a project to be approved. Applying for a special permit is not violating municipal ordinance. It IS the ordinance itself. Zoning laws are established to allow special permits and variances. This is the purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals, to issue decisions according to statute, ordinance and case law. It is a process built into the ordinance/law to have an independent board hear public input, apply the law and determine if a project should go forward.
In the past, Foster filed a disclosure of appearance of conflict of interest regarding DiGirolamo representing Foster as an attorney in connection with real estate matters. He filed that disclosure in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268A, Section 23(b)(3) with the Somerville Law Department in 2000 and 2003 during Mayor Dorothy Kelly Gay’s administration.. In 2011, Foster filed a revised disclosure, writing, “I am informed that current Mayor Joseph Curtatone does not have a copy of any of these disclosures. In order to alleviate any concerns, I am now filing a revised disclosure with Mayor Curtatone.”
Disclosed or not, the fact remains that in Somerville, an attorney who counts the chairman of the ZBA among his former clients is permitted to regularly present cases to the board.
DIG: “On June 24—less than two weeks after the first installment was published—the Dig has now learned that DiGirolamo hosted a fundraiser for Curtatone at Del Frisco’s on the South Boston waterfront. Such upscale open bar shindigs, which suggest donations of between $150 and $500, are tradition; DiGirolamo has previously thrown at least two galas for Curtatone at the Royal Sonesta, as well as a reception last year at Hotel Marlowe in Cambridge. Asked about a potential conflict of interest, a Curtatone campaign spokesman wrote in an email that “people of every demographic, occupation and persuasion get involved in politics and there’s nothing unusual about that.”
CORRECTION: This mischaracterizes the legal campaign contributions made by private individuals, in accordance with state law, and implies that there have been illegal breaches of the conflict of interest law. The authors fail to point to any findings by the State Ethics Commission against the City under the state’s conflict of interest law.
Again, this is not about what’s legal, and what is not legal. In your comments, you include several references to the “Great Recession,” which, as you are probably aware, was largely perpetrated by lenders who technically didn’t break any laws. Politicians are within their right to wield influence and power within legal boundaries. Journalists are within our right to report on how they do that.
DIG: “Statewide, mayoral candidates reported finishing 2011 with a total of $799,461 on hand. Other than Tom Menino in Boston, Curtatone had the largest balance of the bunch, the bulk of which over the years has come from entities with big financial stakes in Somerville.”
CORRECTION: This is false. The bulk of Mayor Curtatone’s contributions come from individuals with the usual stake in their city: it’s their home, and they want a good manager to run it.
We spent months examining the campaign records of Mayor Curtatone and other Somerville officials. That includes older contributions that were filed by hand before the state Office of Campaign & Political Finance accounted for them. Our dig was scrupulous in that we checked records with the understanding that business and development interests are often represented through individual donations. To that point, even if we are just talking about individuals, we take issue with your generalization that Somerville is home all these individuals. Between 2011 and 2013 alone, for example, Mayor Curtatone raised $37,934 from contributors in Boston, $32,525 from residents of Medford, $20,545 in Melrose, and $17,775 in Brookline, for starters. In the same time frame, the mayor raised $8,800 from donors listed as “real estate developers,” and $23,450 from those categorized under “real estate and management.”
DIG: “That trend of developer giving has continued. The management of PT Kelley, which has won Somerville contracts worth more than $5 million in the past two years alone, donated $2,000 in 2012. Owners and associates of Design Consultants, a local traffic-engineering firm that’s banked about $1.5 million in Somerville since 2011, gave $1,400. Last year, 119 Somerville employees donated to Curtatone, though nearly half of them neglected to disclose that they work in city government.”
CORRECTION: The logic purported by the authors is that hiring qualified, certified firms that have solid reputations and work history and using a common, usual and discriminating state-sanctioned selection process, somehow implies a quid pro quo rather than a careful review process that gives equal access to local businesses.
Rather than logic, we are asking readers to look at the facts, such as how generously certain entities contribute to candidates, and what contracts those entities are awarded. Last we checked, these were not facts the Curtatone administration’s quarter-million dollar-a-year communications operation employs its vast resources to disseminate.
The authors also omit the fact that out of 119 Somerville employees who made contributions to the Curtatone Campaign, 72 employees listed their occupation as required by state law for campaign contributions over $200. The remaining 47 employees who contributed to the campaign were not required to list their occupation under state law due to the lower amount of their contributions.
We hope that residents of Somerville read the previous paragraph more than once. Only then will they understand the bureaucracy in place, and the general municipal reluctance to acknowledge fault with behavior so long as it is not outright illegal.
DIG: “In reporting that money, though, he’s been cited by the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance for irregularities on his intake and expenditure reports. In 2011, the Globe reported that Curtatone failed to list the names of 41 vendors that his campaign had paid. The mayor’s spokesperson blamed an electronic glitch. A look at the omissions, however, reveals some potentially embarrassing details—a $350 refund to a local contractor who gave over the legal limit; a $390 “meeting expense” for Patriots tickets.”
CORRECTION: This is a mischaracterization of the facts. None of the expenditures were embarrassing and OCPF never cited Mayor Curtatone’s campaign for the irregularities, which were immediately corrected and the full expenditure lists were immediately provided to the Globe. Mayor Curtatone’s previous filings included the names of all vendors who were paid by his campaign. In this first filing after the new state requirement that candidates file through an electronic system, a glitch did occur. The authors wrongly insinuate wrongdoing when the truth is far simpler.
As for the “embarrassing” expenses, donations are often made over the legal limit and campaigns refund those contributions as a matter of course as was done in the case noted. The above authors’ statement faults the campaign for doing the right thing. The Patriots tickets were purchased to avoid a conflict of interest. Mayor Curtatone was invited to a business meeting to discuss the potential of locating a new stadium in Somerville. A number of national stadium owners and industry officials were also invited to the meeting and the time was set by Kraft during a game. Free tickets were offered to the Mayor. But to avoid any conflict of interest, the complimentary tickets were refused and paid for.
This is one of the greatest euphemistic constructions in flack history: “In this first filing after the new state requirement that candidates file through an electronic system, a glitch did occur.” There were, however, no glitches in our reporting on this matter. Whether it was to casually take in a game or to discuss moving the franchise to Davis Square, there was a “a $390 “meeting expense” for Patriots tickets.”
DIG: “Even since those problems with his 2011 filings, Curtatone has fumbled OCPF requirements. The mayor’s 2012 report, which was due in January, was only completed two weeks ago—and only after being amended three times, by order of the state, for omitting travel expenses, credit card reports, and cash reimbursements. Asked about these issues, a Curtatone campaign spokesperson wrote in an email that “amendments are fairly pro forma stuff,” and that “Mayor Curtatone is in good standing in terms of his political finance reporting.”
CORRECTION: This is a mischaracterization. Mayor Curtatone’s 2012 year-end report was filed on time in January, specifically on January 22, 2013. The Curtatone campaign spokesperson is correct. Amendments are common, usual occurrences. Between July 1, 2013, and Aug. 5, 2013, 60 year-end report amendments were filed by candidates and political actions committees with OCPF. Nothing was fumbled, contrary to the authors’ assertions.
How is there a “mischaracterization” if “the Curtatone campaign spokesperson is correct,” and we quoted them directly?
DIG: “Nevertheless, the corrected reimbursements indicate that Curtatone may even have his sights set outside of New England. In 2012, he used campaign funds to visit Washington, D.C. for a Bruins game, and to travel abroad to Tiznit—a ceremonial Somerville sister city on the coast of Morocco—where he stayed at the Hilton in Casablanca. It was his third time visiting there in four years.”
CORRECTION: This statement contains a number of errors and omits pertinent information. Mayor Curtatone did not attend a Bruins game. The Mayor was invited by President Obama along with a number of other Massachusetts officials including Mayor Menino to a celebration of the Boston Bruin’s 2011 Stanley Cup Championship in Washington. It is in the campaign’s (and the City’s) interest to accept an invitation from the President of the United States. So the Mayor accepted. None of the Mayor’s expenses were paid with city funds.
The Sister City relationship with Tiznit, Morocco was facilitated by the University of the Middle East project (UME) whose offices are in Somerville. UME is an independent nonprofit and non-governmental agency that promotes educational leadership, cross-cultural understanding and regional cooperation as is usual for the very common, productive and popular international Sister City initiative. The Mayor went to Tiznit in December 2009 with a delegation of 20 Somerville teachers, artists and community leaders who met with their professional counterparts. In 2010 the Mayor was invited by the Mayor of Casablanca and former Chicago Mayor Daley to participate on a panel at the third annual US-Arab Cities Forum in Casablanca. All of the guests on the panel were advised to stay at the Hilton, where the panel was held. In 2011, the City in conjunction with UME sent another delegation to Tiznit in April, which the Mayor did not attend. In turn, the City of Somerville hosted a delegation from Tiznit that year as well. The Mayor was asked to come back in 2012 to host a leadership seminar with Professor Hugh O’Doherty from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Again, none of the Mayor’s expenses were paid with city funds.
We are decidedly not saying, claiming, or alleging these expenses were paid for with city funds. However, you may be able to make use of that description of the Tiznit initiative in the documentary your communications department is probably producing about Mayor Curtatone’s trips to Somerville’s sister cities.
DIG: “After retiring from his career at NStar last year—and abandoning his aldermanic post—Roche was promptly picked to serve as Somerville’s director of personnel, and given a pay raise.”
CORRECTION: This is a misrepresentation. Bill Roche, who is an accomplished human resources professional, was hired into a position that was already slated for a salary adjustment as part of the citywide salary adjustment as recommended by the Collins Center of UMass Boston and approved by the Board of Alderman for all full-time non-union staff. That citywide adjustment was to compensate for five years without cost of living increases or salary increases of any kind as well as furloughs during the Great Recession.
We are not surprised to learn there is an elaborate bureaucratic explanation for how Mr. Roche landed his job.
DIG: “Somerville’s charter calls for deserting aldermen to nominate their replacements—so long as less than one year remains in their term—and O’Donovan and Roche installed reliable allies.”
CORRECTION: This is a gross mischaracterization. No one was “installed.” The Board of Aldermen unanimously voted to approve both appointments: one a long-time school committee representative for her ward and the other a long-time and extraordinarily engaged community activist in her ward. Also, before the first article in this series began, the Board of Aldermen approved a change in the replacement process for aldermen who leave office early and they have continued that process since. The Mayor has welcomed this change to established process.
We chose the word “installed,” but we might have said “brought on,” in that they were voted in because there was no reason not to, which was the standard set. In addition, they were still propped up by O’Donovan and Roche, two full-fledged Curtatone allies.
DIG: “Still, both were put into power by staunch Curtatone allies; in Bastardi’s case, the mayor has even been helping her campaign.”
CORRECTION: The authors contradict themselves here. They state earlier in the article that three members of the Board are not allies of Mayor Curtatone, going so far as to call two of them the Mayor’s “haters.” However, four paragraphs later, they are now “staunch Curtatone allies,” because the Board of Aldermen unanimously approved the appointment of the two newest aldermen. Which is it?
They were put into power by Roche and O’Donovan, staunch allies. The “haters,” as we clearly state, are White, Gewirtz, and Lafuente.
DIG: Meanwhile, Curtatone enjoys all-star national status. He’s visited the White House on multiple occasions, played talking head on MSNBC, and been a star participant in the First Lady’s “Let’s Move!” initiative.
CORRECTION: The third statement is a mischaracterization. Mayor Curtatone has not been a mere “star participant in the First Lady’s ‘Let’s Move’ initiative. Let’s Move was modeled in part on Shape Up Somerville, the City’s nationally renowned anti-obesity and healthy living initiative founded and championed by Mayor Curtatone in conjunction with Tufts University. In other words, the Mayor has been a leader in this area and Somerville has been a model, not simply a participant.
Now this is getting embarrassing. We already called the guy a “star” and an “all-star” in the same sentence, but that’s not good enough for you? Was this “correction” approved by the mayor? And if so, does he realize how insanely peremptory that sounds?
DIG: “Curtatone celebrated Election Night 2012 with a few dozen of his faithful followers…. Charismatic as usual, at one point the mayor climbed atop a table to announce the passage of a ballot referendum that enables Somerville to purchase land, with federal funding, for open space preservation and affordable housing.”
CORRECTION: Again, the authors get a key fact wrong here. There is no federal funding involved in the Community Preservation Act (CPA). Somerville residents voted overwhelmingly (3 to 1) in Fall 2012 to pass the CPA, which is a 1.5 percent surcharge on residential property taxes that is then matched in part by state funds. The funding raised through this popular initiative in effect in 154 other communities in the Commonwealth is not used so the City can “purchase land,” but rather an independent board may allocate it to support affordable housing or historical, recreation or green space projects that may involve no purchase at all. This may seem like a small error but it is indicative of the numerous factual errors that riddle this series.
So again, we strongly urge the Dig Publisher and Editor to set higher standards for accuracy and fairness in the future. A robust alternative press is a crucial resource that the area needs, but the public good will not be served if the “alternative” in “alternative press” comes to mean there is an alternative, lower standard for adherence to the facts.
You saved your best for last. State funds were in play. Not federal. We regret the error, and will make the correction. As for the “alternative press” … as you’ve demonstrated in no less than 10,000 words, you wouldn’t know the first thing about the alternative press if it walked into Somerville City Hall and bit you on the backside.
*** END of requests for correction to DigBoston Somerville Files series by Chris Faraone, Adam Vaccaro and Tom Nash ***
Dig Staff means this article was a collaborative effort. Teamwork, as we like to call it.