West End Citizens Association Meeting On Beall's Grant II: "Democracy In Action"

Last Thursday night, at the general membership meeting of the >West End Citizens Association, the subject was the proposed affordable housing development at Beall Ave. and N. Washington St. called Beall’s Grant II.

This issue has generated a great deal of controversy lately. (Here’s a good recap of the issues involved along with some opposing information.)

Since the development had already been approved by the Planning Commission, Thursday’s meeting had become a sort of proxy for citizens who are unhappy with the decision to be heard. The WECA executive board, recognizing the potential for a very contentious evening, laid down strict guidelines for how the meeting would go: a presentation by the developer (Montgomery Housing Partnership, given by MHP president Rob Goldman), a presentation by the citizens who have organized in opposition (Stop Beall’s Grant II, given by resident Melanie Zaletsky, one of the main organizers of the group), and one-minute comments by residents of the West End. WECA president Patricia Woodward presided under difficult circumstances and did a great job.

The room was standing-room only, with (by my count at one point) upwards of 200 citizens attending. I also spied a number of notables including mayor Susan Hoffmann and council members John Britton, Piotr Gajewski, and Phyllis Marcuccio. On hand were city manager Scott Ullery, police chief Terry Treschuk, city planner Jim Wasilak, and others.

After the presentations and question period, the group voted 79-34 to rescind an earlier letter WECA had sent the state Department of Housing and Community Development in support of a funding request. This action leaves WECA’s official position towards Beall’s Grant II as “neutral” – though, according to one speaker, it is unclear what effect rescinding the letter will have, as the document was a part of an earlier funding request that had already been denied (in other words, the letter may be moot).

Another motion was then made by Bridget Newton that calls for MHP and WECA to work together to try to find a way to configure the project in such a way that it both meets the area’s workforce housing needs and also is palatable to a broader cross section of the community. Near the end of the meeting, after the arguments had all been made, it appeared that there might, in fact, be room for compromise if the City can reduce or remove a requirement for 200+ parking spaces and if other changes could be made in the character and size of the proposed building. There is no guarantee of agreement, but there was clear optimism.

Montgomery Housing Partnership president Rob Goldman was asked, after this resolution passed by acclamation, whether MHP would be willing to work with the residents and perhaps change the configuration of the development. “I would love to sit down and talk,” he said. “I have said before that we want to work with you. The most healthy way to do that is to sit down and talk.”

In the view of one observer afterwards, the meeting was “democracy in action,” and I have to agree. Tempers ran high, but were also kept in check. Speakers rose and gave emotional appeals on both sides. Most everyone felt frustrated by the one-minute rule that was very strictly enforced. But, at the end, both sides were compromising and expressing a desire to work together. It seemed as if the mood at the end was in part catalyzed by the sober words of my neighbor Stephen Balkam, who rose to say:

“We moved here because of [the neighborhood's] openness, inclusiveness, and reasonableness. . . . Tonight, we have not heard the word ‘compromise.’ I am in favor of [the development], but certainly we can bring it down a level. It is not an either/or situation. We can find a solution, because we MUST have affordable housing.”

I was seated between two people who were strongly allied with opposing sides (each spoke for their position). It was obvious to me that these two people could, if necessary, work together. Each had points they strongly believed. At the same time, no one was trying to vilify those who disagreed with them.

I entered the meeting strongly in favor of Beall’s Grant II. I left the meeting just as convinced that we can reach a joint solution, perhaps one that doesn’t look like the plan on the drawing board but that will still make a significant amount of affordable housing available for working families.

If I closed my eyes, I could almost imagine I was at a town meeting in my old small town of Camden, Maine – only I could actually understand everyone’s accent here!

Rather than go into detail about each side’s arguments, I will let you listen and decide for yourselves. I have posted video of each primary presentation – in the citizens’ response period no new arguments really came up, so by watching these two videos you can get your own sense of each side’s argument in their own words. I did not edit them because I did not want to inadvertently mangle anyone’s argument. (Each is upwards of 20 minutes but, hey, we watched the whole thing and you can too!)

Here is Rob Goldman’s presentation for Montgomery Housing Partnership:

And here is Melanie Zaletsky’s presentation for Stop Beall’s Grant II:

Thank you, everyone involved, for the willingness to work together you have shown.

I hope that, if I have made any errors or if people have things to add, that you’ll come to the blog and post a comment so everyone can see. Let’s keep this dialogue going.

(Photo by Doris Lee at www.justregularfolks.com. Thanks Doris!!)

Share and enjoy:

Hide Sites