New "Anti-Shadow" Laws Proposed for Boston

[briv]

This has been discussed in various other threads in the past, but I thought I would give it its own because of the potentially far-reaching effects it could have on virtually all new future development in the city.

From the Globe:

Originally Posted by the Boston Globe

Bill looks to limit shadows on parks

By John C. Drake, Globe Staff | February 5, 2009


A pair of Boston lawmakers seeking to check vertical commercial growth in the Back Bay and along the Rose Kennedy Greenway have filed legislation that would outlaw new development that casts midday shadows on a half-dozen parks in the city.


Part of the impetus for the bill is a planned 47-story residential tower that would rise above Neiman Marcus at Copley Place, just steps from Copley Square, the Boston Public Library, and a couple of blocks from picturesque Commonwealth Avenue.


"The default here should be that open space should have as much sunlight as possible," said state Representative Byron Rushing, Democrat of Boston, who sponsored the bill with Representative Martha M. Walz, who represents the Back Bay and Beacon Hill.


"One of the things about having open space is not only do you get to see the sky, but also you get the sun on you," Rushing said. "We're saying there are places in Boston that, from now on, should have no more shadow in the middle of the day."


The measure caught the city by surprise. The legislation landed on Beacon Hill as the Boston Redevelopment Authority is preparing a review of its own development restrictions along the Rose Kennedy Greenway. City officials said existing development guidelines are adequate to protect parks from shadow and the issue should be left to local officials.


"Their concern is my concern about development, about casting shadows in certain locations," Mayor Thomas M. Menino said. "We'll be able to deal with those issues through the planning process of the Boston Redevelopment Authority. When there are serious problems with shadows, we adjust the height of the building or factors that bring shadows onto those" parks.


But Rushing said the city has not done enough to keep parks from being covered in darkness during the day. The legislation would expand existing protections set in law that prevent the addition of shadows on Boston Common.


In addition to the Greenway, the bill would limit development that casts midday shadows on Charles River Esplanade, Christopher Columbus Park, Commonwealth Avenue Mall, and Copley Square Park. It also would affect Magazine Beach Park in Cambridge.


"If this law passes, there will be additional places in Boston where people will know that, from now on, they will get as much sunlight as they get now into the future . . . until we tear some buildings down, and then we'll get some more," Rushing said.


Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association, which represents business in the district, said the proposed restrictions are extensive enough to seriously limit almost any new development in broad swaths of the city.


"Without any public process, it sounds like they're trying to create a development moratorium in the city, because virtually every development casts a shadow somewhere," she said.


Mainzer-Cohen said that, if passed, development restrictions that limiting could affect the city's ability to provide new housing and could rob the state of jobs and tax revenue created by development. Those concerns, she said, should be balanced against the possibility of allowing limited shadow on the city's abundant green spaces.


Susan Elsbree, Boston Redevelopment Authority spokeswoman, said that the city includes Boston's Parks and Recreation Department in a review of new developments and that the parks commissioner must sign off on any new development within 100 feet of a park. She said the original legislation affecting development around Boston Common was passed only after extensive study in cooperation with city officials.


John C. Drake can be reached at jdrake@globe.com.

LINK

[ablarc]

Ominous.

Bone-chilling stupidity.

If this passes, Boston has no future.

A museum town, like Charleston or Venice.

What happens to job growth?

Oh ... office parks in the suburbs.

[jass]

Wow.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Seriously folks, it's time to write your state reps.

Massachusetts state representatives

[a630]

ooo, just in time for the 100th anniversary of MA's contribution to the foundation of zoning, Welch v Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 1909, and it's even the same issue.

"In determining the validity of a state statute affecting height of buildings, local conditions must be considered, and, while the judgment of the highest court may not be conclusive, it is entitled to the greatest respect, and will not be interfered with unless clearly wrong.

Where the highest court of the state has held that there is reasonable ground for classification between the commercial and residential portions of a city as to the height of buildings, based on practical and not esthetic grounds, and that the police power is not to be exercised for merely esthetic purposes, this Court will not hold that such a statute, upheld by the state court, prescribing different heights in different sections of the city, is unconstitutional as discriminating against, and denying equal protection of the law to, the owners of property in the district where the lower height is prescribed.

Where there is justification for the enactment of a police statute limiting the height of buildings in a particular district, an owner of property in that district is not entitled to compensation for the reasonable interference with his property by the statute.

Chapters 333 of the acts of 1904 and 33 of the acts of 1905 of Massachusetts, limiting the heights of buildings in Boston and prescribing different heights in different sections of the city are, in view of the decision of the highest court of Massachusetts holding that the discrimination is based upon reasonable grounds, a proper exercise of the police power of the state, and are not unconstitutional under the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

193 Mass. 364 affirmed. "

[a630]

but, look on the bright side. if passed, maybe this will set the precedent that local muncipalities cannot be held responsible for the protection of their citizens in matters of land use regulation, which is what this legislation is asserting in part? maybe? oh probably not. Wish I still had a state rep in MA (just this once).

[bbfen]

The two of them, I question if they're nuts or what. I understand how they feel they have the divine right they feel to impose their beliefs (as opposed to representing the individuals in their district honestly, even if they personally disagree), but am I really the only one creeped out by the way they never go anywhere without the other, or say anything that isn't immediately parroted and agreed to, by the other?

Time to vote them out, but the NABBers and BHCA have everyone sufficiently frightened that no one will ever run against them.

[KentXie]

I dare them to pass it. If they did, I can't wait to see Boston lag behind the rest of the nation and rot.

[JohnAKeith]

Bone. Chilling.

I wish I was the state rep in Sal DiMasi's newly-available spot.

[Patriots_1228]

worst
idea
ever

[tobyjug]

No no no no no. You don't understand what this bill is trying to do and the legislative strategy behind it.

[ShawnA]

I really think it is time for a new mayor in this city. The mayor doesnt reliaze that boston doesnt have anymore land to build on, so it would only make sense to build tall buildings. All this money that are spending on zoining laws and restictions that could me using that to for public education. Boston will never be considered a beautiful skyline city.

[JohnAKeith]

Do I hijack threads?

What is it, then, tobyjug?

ShawnA, in this case, I think it's because of the mayor that they are trying to do this. They don't trust him to argue their case so they're doing an "end-run" around him.

They do this all the time. It's Marty Walz's world, we just live in it. (Case in point, Parcel 16.)

[Chirag]

Just wrote to my state rep and will continue doing so until this miserable piece of legislation has died the horrible death it so justly deserves.

Anyone who lives in the state should do the same thing. It's takes two minutes and legislators do respond to this kind of pressure, especially when the law in question has no wide-spread, *legitimate* constituency. The angle I took was two-fold: first, both on the merits and with the economy in free-fall, this type of anti-growth, anti-progress legislation should never see the light of day. Secondly, especially with the economy in free-fall, doesn't the House have better things to do?

... Honestly, on the city, state, and national level we have become so inured to watching our politicians dither and babble and lurch from one disaster to another. Even if the particular decisions have been informed by radically different biases and ideologies -- our entire political class has lost the ability to make fundamentally sound choices.

What are these people working towards? Who are they working for?

[kmp1284]

Seems as though Rushing is throwing his Roxbury constituency under the bus on this one, what with property tax revenue being vital to their much needed police and fire protection.

[tobyjug]

O.K. John,

It is a very old con practiced by experienced legislators who need to top up their campaign funds. Here is how it works:

Credulous, zealous wide eyed rep comes up with lamebrained, goo goo idea. The veteran reps think "what an idiot", but like all great opportunists, see a chance to profit. What if the idiotic idea threatens banks, labor unions, developers, employment? The scent of blood is in the water.

Veteran rep: "Hey, Marty, that's a great idea! You really ought to file a bill!"

Thus encouraged, Marty does just that.

A few more do-good idiots and general dimwits sign on, while the veterans sit back and wait to cash in. Word of the bill hits the press with a big splash because something this stupid doesn't come along every day.

The unions, banks, developers start to get scared. They start to call their "boys":

Lobbyist: "Hey Jimmy, this thing is gonna kill us. You gotta help us out here!"

Veteran rep: "I dunno, Banksie, this thing's got some legs. It's gonna take alot of juice to stop this thing from becoming a runaway train. And I'm a little beat up after November, if you know what I mean."

L: "Look, Jimmy, were all grateful for what you've done for us over the years. I've been meaning to tell you, well, it was meant to be a surprise, but we're just in the final stages of putting together a little "do" for you over at (insert choice of: union hall if it is a union lobbyist; if it is a bank or pension fund manager lobbyist the "fundraiser" used to be at Anthony's or Jimmy's Harborside; if the rep is North Shore it will be at Spinelli's on Route 1, etc. etc.).

L: "You know, its just to help out after your tough November."

VR: "Banksie, look. I'll make some calls, talk to the right people. Know what I mean? I'll see what I can do about this thing. Hey, talk to my aide so I'll know when to get my (wife/girlfriend/niece) a new dress for the "do", ok? She's been buggin' the shit out of me."

L: "Jimmie, don't worry about a thing. Not a thing. Got it covered."

Picture such discussions with, say, the 15 or 20 key reps who actually control the House. Happening right now. Goofball rep's bill goes to committee for study of the noble purpose of preserving unshadowed green space. Perhaps to study the repeal of the laws of space and time to stop the earth from revolving so Boston is sun lit 24-7. Legislature makes small appropriation to hire, I don't know, some boyfriend of prominent open space advocate to study shadows. Veteran reps laugh all the way to the bank.

Bill never heard from again.

Wake Toby when it is over.

[bbfen]

Originally Posted by tobyjug

O.K. John,

It is a very old con practiced by experienced legislators who need to top up their campaign funds.

Rep Walz has been accused of being many things, but an experienced legislator? Tobyjug, your sense of humor is drier than a fine wine. I appreciate both.

[tobyjug]

BBF,
I like a man who likes his wine! But you might want to cast Marty for the "credulous rep" role rather than as one of the old pros!
Toby

[a630]

I like that (hilarious/sad) scenario, but can we afford to be that cynical?

[Ron Newman]

I'd love to see Tremont-on-the-Common torn down.