Dear Editor,
It is disconcerting to me, as the city moves forward in implementing the Watertown Square Conceptual Plan, is the constant “we need housing.” We know that none of the people clamoring for housing are homeless. However, there is nothing wrong with being altruistic and wanting to help others.
Wouldn’t how and what is the capacity of Watertown to help reduce housing needs in the Commonwealth be an advantageous approach?
I have been especially proud of Watertown in that when none of the surrounding cities and towns would have Halfway Homes in their community, Watertown stepped forward and welcomed those less fortunate into the community.
David and Anne Bromer, who we met in Watertown, spearheaded Fair Housing Practices in Massachusetts. They asked Mary and me to assist in testing landlords as to whether they would lease or rent to Black People. To my knowledge, David and Anne did not test in Watertown.
We know there were some in Watertown who didn’t wish to rent to Black People as there were throughout the state; especially during this period in Boston with its clamor over anti-busing in Schools.
The Forward or progressive thinking of Watertown’s leaders led to creating the Watertown Multi-Service Center housed on the Arsenal Property. I believe this has evolved or merged with Wayside.
The School Administration and School Committee implemented an outstanding program for our children with Special Needs before the enactment of Chapter 766.
Chapter 766 of the Massachusetts Public Education Law, signed in 1972 intent was to guarantee that each School District provide free and appropriate pubic education in the least restrictive environment to all school-aged children regardless of disability. An educational program best suited for their needs was also part of the law.
As stated, even before the enactment of 766, Watertown’s Program was the envy of all of the neighboring Communities. So much so that parents of children with special needs gave Watertown addresses of relatives or fake addresses in order to be admitted.
Also, the Watertown’s School Committee recognized that there are students that are not accommodated in a traditional high school model. Therefore, they established the Home Base School. Inner directed Students thrived within the non-traditional setting. The school was small; however, the joy displayed and stories told by the students during their graduation exercises was simply splendid and heart-touching.
The Watertown I knew also involved neighbor to neighbor support. When tragic accidents occurred leading to a disability, neighbors and the wider community joined together to see how they could help. More often than not, they chipped in with their hands to help eliminate physical barriers. This was done along with their fund-raising efforts.
We cannot overlook the Board of Selectmen deeding over a part of Saltonstall Park in order to build the Boys Club; now the Boys and Girls Club. Beginning with meager resources, the Director did most of the repairs.
Nor, can we forget the School Committee deeding a portion of the Phillip School and its grounds to build a Senior Citizens Center.
The people of Watertown know what is cited above is a drop in the bucket in comparison to the many accomplishments of this historic city.
Consequently, in light of the few moments and facets cited above, do you see the people of Watertown drawing a red line — no new housing? Of course not. And everyone knows if said, it would be ignored. An owner has the freedom to use, sell, lease, or transfer their property.
Protectionism by many residents is due to love of Watertown and centers on what their beloved city is going to look like. Disparate Developers have their own ideas about what they want to build; often resulting in an incongruous mix of buildings.
Watertown has always stepped forward to help where needed.
Most residents wish to see a theme for the builders to follow for the Square.
Clyde Younger
It is incorrect to say that “An owner has the freedom to use, sell, lease, or transfer their property.” Zoning ordinances affect what can be built or what the property can be used for, and that will be the next conversation.
Also, this author purports that “Protectionism by many residents is due to love of Watertown and centers on what their beloved city is going to look like. Disparate Developers have their own ideas about what they want to build; often resulting in an incongruous mix of buildings.” — My response: I’m a citizen too and I completely disagree with your taste in design, so I don’t want it enforced on me. No resident should be dictate to a property owner what their building should look like (within reason).
Ms. Breen,
1. Is there a difference between a Seller and a Buyer in your mind’s eye? A Buyer would have to be cognizant of what you state in terms of zoning.
2. I never said you were not a citizen of Watertown, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States.
3. Please define my taste in design. I clearly did not say anything about my taste in design other than an interest in a theme. I am not from New England; however, I do like certain areas where they display the New England Charm. I do not recall or remember my saying so.
Mary does say on occasion, I have selective hearing and memory.
Whatever you prefer in design is none of my business. It is your prerogative and no one has the right to tell you what you want.