Council needs BRA to kick around
10 December 2004
The Boston Redevelopment Authority is like a dog people kick when they're angry. For decades, city councilors have called it arrogant and unrestrained, a fiefdom unto itself, an out-of-control bully that tramples the rights of residents and small property owners in its zeal to build.
And so, faced with a rare chance to bring the agency to heel - to make it accountable, to make it heed residents' wishes, perhaps even to dismantle the whole thing - what will the council do?
Keep the dog.
The opportunity stems from the impending expiration of some 19 urban renewal districts covering about five square miles. The BRA wants to extend them all through 2013.
Urban renewal was a post-World War II idea, part of an
effort by
Some councilors and local activists oppose any extension, hoping the BRA just withers away. Others propose giving residents more voice in reviewing development plans. And then there's the Holy Grail of reform: Separate the BRA into two agencies, one for planning and the other for development. That would undo what they see as a fatal conflict of interest between good planning and profit- driven development.
But when all is said and done, the BRA will likely get its extensions. Sure, the council may nibble around the edges, perhaps getting small concessions. In large part, however, the BRA will be unchanged.
Why? Because for all of its problems, the alternative is worse. Someone has to make decisions about development. Who should it be? Politicians or planners?
No question, the BRA is largely unaccountable to politicians. That's intentional. When it was created in 1957, it was designed to be immune from the everyday political pressures that had ground new construction to a halt and left the city in the economic doldrums. And despite some early mistakes, over time the agency has been remarkably successful.
As much as they may rail against the BRA, most councilors understand this. They like that the city has grown; many can point with pride to BRA projects in their own neighborhoods. They suspect dividing the agency could undermine its effectiveness. They are wary of handing more power to residents, because the attitude of most is to build nothing. And they know well that they as pols would be poor subs for the professionals who occupy the BRA's ninth-floor offices.
How do they know? Because three times a month they troop into the hearing room of the Zoning Board of Appeals and testify in favor of or against particular variances. It's a miserable experience, with one's position driven largely by which group of constituents is yelling most loudly. Many a time councilors find themselves standing in front of the board praying that their testimony will be ignored (and often it is; ZBA members understand this game, too). Given this, the last thing councilors want is to have to be the decision makers when it comes to planning and development for the entire city.
And so the BRA will continue on for the next eight years, much as it has for the last 47. Pols will berate it when they have to. Really, though, they'll be grateful it's the BRA and not them who are getting the blame.