BRA forgets need to enforce the law

20 October 2004

I can't begin to tell you the number of times I've agreed to empty the dishwasher and then, somehow, forgotten. Wouldn't it be great, I've often wondered, if I had someone who could follow me around, taking detailed notes and making sure I remember all of my various promises, assurances and I'll-get-right-on-thats.

I think that's the same thought behind the Boston Redevelopment Authority's newest high-level job, one officially titled "director of compliance" but what others call a "promise keeper."

Over the years, the BRA has cut hundreds, if not thousands, of deals with real estate developers. Mark Maloney, the BRA's boss, deserves credit for coming up with the notion of a compliance officer to track those agreements. And his choice for the job - Christine Colley, a well-known Bay Village activist - is a good one.

Still, as those who know me best might tell you, the problem really isn't that I forget to empty the dishwasher. It's that I never truly wanted to do the job in the first place.

And therein lies the difficulty.

If you want to build in Boston, you have to get permission from the BRA. In almost every case, its approvals come with conditions - provisos about design, public benefits and amenities. A housing project may have some units designated as affordable. A new commercial complex may have to agree to build a community meeting room. An office tower may be required to fund the construction and maintenance of a nearby park. The BRA is responsible for enforcing all of these.

Yet no one knows how many of these agreements have been made, what they are or if they are being followed. Colley and her staff are now poring over documents. By her count, there are 165 housing projects around the city that the BRA is supposed to monitor; 63 institutional master plans (which cover virtually everything that occurs in areas such as the Longwood Medical Center) and another 130 or more "cooperation agreements" (deals cut with developers that permit a project to go forward).

By one measure, then, Colley seems like Santa Claus: She's making a list and checking it twice. Yet there's more to it than that - or at least, there should be.

Both the genius and the flaw of the BRA are its relative independence. A creature of state law, it is governed by a board that is in turn appointed by the mayor. That autonomy keeps it largely free from political meddling and allows it to make judgments based upon its perception of merit. Moreover, the sweeping scope of its authority means it can coordinate projects, seeing how each new proposal meshes with what is already built.

Yet that independence is itself fundamentally anti-democratic. And if the BRA is not accountable to the public in the normal ways of most governmental institutions, then to whom is it accountable? Developers? Special interests? Or just its own skewed vision of what Boston should look like?

All of these worries breed suspicion and they underlie the reaction of many community activists to Colley's new position. Oftentimes the deals the agency cuts with developers are made in the heat of the moment; they are quid pro quos to get residents to sign off on a project. After years have passed, however, memories fade, people move away and new priorities emerge. Agreements once made can be forgotten, ignored or simply reneged upon.

It happens. In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, for example, the John Hancock building closed its public observatory. Many remember that observatory as a public amenity, agreed upon as part of the building's approval three decades ago. But no one could find the documents or quite recall the exact terms of the deal.

Similarly, five years ago, it was discovered that "affordable" housing units monitored by the BRA were in fact being rented by those who clearly were not low income - indeed, one of those renters was the chief of staff to the then-BRA director.

So what occurs in cases like these? Does Colley have authority to force compliance? Does she blow the whistle, going to the City Council or the media, detailing what is and is not being done?

Both Maloney and Colley say the job is still evolving. Yet, disturbingly, Maloney thinks there is no need for such authority; "I don't think we need outside reporting," he says, arguing the agency is already sufficiently responsive to the public.

He's wrong on that. If, as he also says, the purpose of the job is to build the BRA's "credibility," it won't succeed in doing so unless Colley has some ability to go public and to compel enforcement (or at least acknowledgement) of the agency's obligations. Absent that, as with me and the dishwasher, the fear remains that forgetfulness may simply be an easy way to break a promise.