Dear Editor,
It appears Watertown has had Comprehensive Planning Study after Comprehensive Planning
Studies.
I served this fair city in a few elected positions for a number of years and am dumbfounded by what I see today. I have considered or prided myself in being a positive person or at least I strived to be. I know many people associate me with flipping burgers; however, before I was a Burger King Franchisee, I spent twenty-five years with the United States Public Health Service (PHS), principally working with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
My first assignment out of College was in Los Angeles, then Albuquerque, New Mexico then Boston. I started my career in the STD program (Venereal Disease).
I am giving a short background on my career because what I learned in College doesn’t matter. I arrived in Boston to help the City of Boston administer their Tuberculosis Control Program. Each of my assignments taught me invaluable life lessons.
One year, during my assignment in the City, the Centers For Control adopted a federal management style called “Management By Objectives.” I was hyped by this management tool
because it provided clear goals and objectives that you wish to achieve.
I viewed that Management By Objectives centered primarily on course correction whenever you saw something deviating from the perceived goal. I kept pointing out little mistakes, until the clerks asked me one day “in your minds eye is there anything we are doing right”?
I remained in the Boston area by accepting the position of Regional Director of Family Planning Services. The office is located in the JFK Federal Building. A couple of years later the Regional Health Director asked me to consider a reassignment with CDC in the Regional Office.
The Public Health Service and CDC possess magnificent training programs; however, the lesson learned that day by a simple question posed to me by the clerks of Boston’s Hospital and Health’s Tuberculosis Control Program has had a profound effect and has remained as a guidepost through both my public and private careers.
I learned how to effect change, build consensus and accomplish goals by bringing people along rather than ignoring them.
Therefore, I cannot fathom myself starting a new complex management job and within a year and a half adopt plans to completely transform a city. I realize that the Manager, his Planning Staff and Members of the Planning and Zoning Boards are intelligent, learned and have years of experience in their field.
However, it is troubling that an extraordinary transformative decision affecting all of us for years to come is to be made by a Manager who has only been an Employee of the city for a year and a half; Nine Councilors directly elected by voters and Five Planning Board Members appointed by the Manager.
A case can be made that the decision should rest with the Nine Elected City Councilors who are directly voted by the voters. However, when we wrote the Charter, our purpose in establishing districts was to allow lesser – known residents to have a chance to be elected rather than competing against well-known popular Town-Wide candidates.
It was thought that District Candidates would eventually compete Town-Wide; allowing new ideas in the discussions and deliberations of the Council.
A case could be made that the Four District Councilors fall within some degree of the same category as the Planning Board since they are not elected by voters of the entire City.
Is a decision of this magnitude fair to all of the Residents of Watertown when so few (fourteen) are deciding? When we changed the management manner in which the Town would be governed, Commissioners were elected and the recommendations approved by the Voters.
I am not attempting by any means saying these people are not of good will. As I have stated, this is only my perception of the shortfalls regarding the plan being proposed.
However, I do not consider it a Plan. It appears to be a Concept . I could swear that I heard the Manager in response to a question say as we go along, we will have to Zone certain portions of the Plan to carry out certain provisions.
Perhaps I misunderstood an overriding consideration in hiring the Manager was his strength in Strategic Urban Planning. In reading the Watertown Square Area Plan, I wonder why the Manager needed to Out Source the Study. According to his Bio, he had the skill set to carry out the study in house.
I can see hiring a Traffic Engineer to study and arrive at a solution to improve traffic flow in the Square. Did we need to combine both?
Apparently, the goal encompasses more than attempting to meet some of the housing needs portrayed by the State.
It appears the Manager is implementing, in the Square, the theory of Walkable Cities. Walkability emphasizes high density neighborhoods where people can have access to most amenities by foot.
Is the statement regarding changing zoning requirements, as we go forward left unsaid plans to move further and further from the center of the City? Notable, no there is no mention about how we ensure or assist the viability of existing businesses of the Square.
Watertown is not Boston 89.63 sq. mi., Worcester 38.44 sq. mi., Springfield 33.08 sq. mi., or Cambridge 6.43 sq. mi.
I haven’t met anyone who is against new housing units. I am certain that people know we are not in a static environment and without additional housing a City withers on the vine so to speak. But, throwing out 3,300 new units? Is our Manager and Planning Staff aware of the fact that his does not equate to 3,300 people moving into the community? How many live alone.
Massachusetts Census Data
Watertown 2020 Census: 35,329, 2010 Census: 31,915, Change from 2010: 3,414, % Change: 10.7%, 2019 est.: 35,939, Change from 2019 est.: -610, % Change: -170%
Residents may have spoken about all of the construction and complained about traffic.
However, it was recognized that the influx of traffic was not due to new City residents plus the old, but to new transportation patterns adopted by nearby cities and towns.
People have the right to ask our Planners about what soft and hard infrastructure is needed in order for us to accommodate the number of new residents conjectured.
The 3,300 new units bandied about could possibly add 6,600 new residents to Watertown. The town accommodated 3,400 or so in 10 years without a problem; however, 6,000 presents a problem unless it is spread out in a 10 year period.
We have never had a decision of this magnitude made by so few.
The People deserve an opportunity to vote on a consequential change in the character of the City; not in terms of halting all growth, but approving a solid plan from our Planners. It is incumbent that the administration outline how and specific steps we are going to undertake to get there. A question of electing Commissioners was placed before the Voters of Watertown to discuss how the Town would be Managed. The recommendation by the Commission also allowed a vote.
Should not a matter as monumental as this be also presented to the Voters so that they understand what the specific area boundary for new units the administration is considering, especially outside of the normal understanding what constitutes the Square.
Voting on the matter is fitting for an area that is the seat of democracy.
Clyde Younger
Watertown Resident
Watertown’s population has finally almost rebounded from the nearly 20% decline that occurred during your tenure. Please feel free to sit this one out, I am not going to tolerate ideas from someone that did absolutely nothing to grow Watertown while in office
Who are you to tell Clyde Younger to “sit this one out” my friend. You don’t agree with Clyde, that’s fine, but know that he has honorably served Watertown in various roles for many decades.
Implying that the decline in population was Mr. Younger’s fault is an example of lazy and mean spirited argument. It has a distinctly school yard odor.
The drop in population in Watertown was a result of national trends like deindustrialization. The drop was most likely centered in the under 17 age category. We don’t have as many families with kids according to friends of mine who grew up here.
This represents a demographic shift. Currently there are some in our municipal government who are hostile to families settling here because of the demands they would place on our school system. That is a shameful view.
Finally many of the changes that you blame on Mr. Younger are the result of globalizing markets. Anything that he might have done to remedy the situation you would probably have considered “socialist”.
I know there is opposition to the plan and clearly Mr. Younger is part of that opposition, but I do not understand his letter, nor what he is proposing. Is he suggesting that there should be a town wide vote on the plan? If so, I wish he had just said that!
Mr. Younger thinks approval of the recommendations in the sweeping Watertown Square Plan ought to be put to a vote by the city’s registered voters. This seems a reasonable suggestion in light of the “gaslighting” of residents by Mr. Proakis and the “expert” consultants. At public meetings, residents’ misgivings, skepticism, and questions have been greeted with impatience and even annoyance. The manager, Mr. Magoon, and other staff people, by their attitudes, seem to be saying that residents upset about or opposed to the Watertown Square plan are being hysterical and should just calm down and leave the fate of Watertown to the “experts.”
But just hold on. The legitimacy and credibility of their plans and decisions depend on public approval, meaning instead of “gaslighting” taxpayers, officials, elected or appointed, should show a modicum of respect for the people who pay the bills. That is how participatory government is supposed to work.
Residents participated in a process that produced an aspirational document, the Comprehensive Plan. Residents said they wanted affordable housing, more green space, a vibrant Watertown Square enhanced by the preservation and upgrading of existing small businesses, and traffic reduction, to name a few longstanding ideas that haven’t happened. Instead, some ideas seem to have been filed away or pared down as is evident from some recommendations in the Watertown Square plan.
Despite residents’ aspirations, over the years, residents have witnessed the approval of one built blunder after another. The result: more luxury housing, uglier architecture, less green space, choking traffic congestion, and a localized supply-and-demand parking crisis which municipalities mandate developers solve by building code parking minimums instead of housing units.
It is not unreasonable to expect Mr. Proakis and the planners to gain residents’ approval by explaining without planner babble and hostility how the implementation of the various aspects of the Watertown Square plan will fulfill many residents’ longtime dreams of a driving-optional life, pleasant public spaces for kids and the elderly, and where parking concerns don’t torpedo affordable housing.
On the question of approval of the Watertown Square plan, a recorded vote of registered voters’ yeas and nays should, as Mr. Younger, suggests, be considered.
What Mr. Younger describes is called “representative government.” It says that government should be responsive to the people. From what I can see, the City Manager, City Council and Planning Board have demonstrated that they ARE responsive to the people’s feedback on the Watertown Square Area Plan. There have been numerous opportunities for citizen comments and those have been incorporated into the planning process in a fair and open manner. This author ran for City Council President last year, essentially on this topic, and lost with ~25% of the vote. We don’t need any more delays, and we don’t need to vote city-wide on a process in which everyone has had a voice.
I recognize that some people are uncomfortable with change, but I really like the changes Watertown has made over the past 8 years (that I’ve witnessed). Moreover, this city MUST change the traffic pattern through Watertown Square and the zoning process to enable new housing. That is why I support the Watertown Square Area Plan.
P.S. I don’t understand the “gaslighting” accusations at all.
The “gaslighting” is the disdain that city officials and you yourself often show toward those who question the wisdom of some parts of the plan. For instance, in the above you still repeat the old saw that questioning aspects of the plan is due to people being “uncomfortable with change.” Perhaps they are just uncomfortable with with ideas that seem wrongheaded or egotistical to them.
Few will disagree that we need a traffic overhaul in Watertown Square.
Totally agree about how we govern ourselves. We aren’t a direct democracy where the voters weigh in on every issue. Councilors were elected and Planning Board members appointed to make these decisions. Eight Councilors ran unopposed last November. Just because people don’t like the decision doesn’t give them the right to seek to overturn it outside of the system of government we have.
The “we aren’t a direct democracy” argument is usually just an excusatory rationale for dubious actions. Boards appointed by an appointed official must be careful to pay attention to the citizens that they presumably serve. This has often not been the case in Watertown. Rather, citizens have been subject to quite a bit of arrogance and condescension.
The Founders believed in bringing about a more perfect democracy. There’s nothing wrong with that, especially when trust is running so low.
The situation with some many Councilors running unopposed is an embarrassment.
Trust is so low that all but one of the members of the City Council ran unopposed 8 months ago. Your disagreement with an initiative does not prompt a fundamental change in how local government works. Sorry!
The fact that they ran unopposed is not an indicator of widespread approval. It is more indicative of the desirability of the job. A ton of work for short money.
You are out of touch Paul.
The idea that people don’t run for office because it doesn’t pay a lot compared to the time commitment shows the true disconnect from reality!
Reminder that comments must be signed with full name.
Not sure why Mr. Younger thought it was necessary to include an overly detailed resume of his experience bragging about a management style which resulted in employees asking if they are “doing anything right”! The point of the letter, in far too many words, is that the decision should go to a vote which is not a terrible recommendation. However, it’s been mentioned in the meetings that once zoning changes are adapted they would still need to be adopted by ZBA and each individual project would still need to go through the same approval process as all other development projects in town. Therefore, many opportunities to scrutinize. Also frustrating that article suggests that City Manager Proakis should have conducted the study himself which is absurd, moreover, anyone in the industry would applaud the fact that he has brought-in some of the best planners in the country. As much as Mr. Younger likes to brag about his experience, this is one area he should leave to the professionals who do this for a living.
I suggest you look at Mr. Proakis resume. He is an expert in Strategic Urban Planning and has the capacity to direct and lead all of the planning activities. It also provides ownership. Who is the owner of the proposal? Who do we consider the owner of the Proposal? The Consultant, the Manager, we who have participated in the meetings and find none of our suggestions included or the Council that the Manager said it is now your Plan without their vote to accept?
My short bio was a sign of weakness on my part after being out of office so long. I never should have done it. I gave a little background since many people have moved into this community and don’t know me from Adam. First, I attempted to convey the fact that I do not wish to be considered or portrayed as a negative person simply because I am not in favor of certain elements of the proposal presented. I was taught critical thinking skills. My understanding was critical thinking was not to criticize everything but to analyze matters.
Admittedly, I have been a little uncomfortable with the city due to the fact that I do not see outreach to minority populations. Have we encouraged any to be involved in matters of interest to the community? When I look around I only see a few or I am alone.
While I never felt it necessary in the past, I sense a change regarding persons of my and other ethnic groups that I have never felt before. Thus, I felt it warranted to point out that I have an extensive background in management. And, while I am not a Planner, based on my experience, I can see when there are gaps in the information given to people. One can be transparent and still hold back on critical information.
I read the Request For Proposals and the ratings given to the few responses that were given. Often, in government, we saw few responses because consultants talk to each other. They often know who is going to be chosen. It is suffice to say I try to do my homework and not talk off the top of my head.
A perception a person possesses is hard to change. And, I am not going to prove to anyone that I am not a braggard. Perhaps I should have been clear in pointing out that I didn’t grow up here in Watertown and have experience in cities even larger than Boston. I have often said Watertown would be a village in Denver where I grew up. I am not a Townie. But, early on I grew to love this town. I found it easy to get accepted in Watertown and there was no “White Flight” as my parents experienced in Denver as they gained upward mobility. People accepted me for who I am.
Transportation wise, I could travel to any state in New England from here. We know that location is very important and one cannot quibble about the fact that others have discovered this little gem. We admire the effort and work by those planning and undertaking an invaluable service by their devotion to provide our children with the best curriculum we can in order for them to compete globally.
It is notable that no one has complained about what we are doing to improve our schools. The only concern I have heard is what if the Council decides not to restore Moxley Park to its prior use.
Ms. Kurlbaum, I and others on the Council approved and voted on a specific area for the Pleasant Street Corridor i.e. the four corner area of Pleasant and Bridge Street . I can only guess that Mr. Magoon, decided corridor means corridor. Therefore, we should have not used the term corridor and been more definitive. I find trust important and from this experience believe the public must know the specific area under consideration.
I think I heard Main Street Corridor mentioned. I wondered are we going there again?
Certainly, I think that there should vote on the proposal. There are too many loose ends. When the Manager is telling you, in no uncertain terms, we will have to make zoning changes as we go along should be of concern to all. The MBTA Law governing Right to Zone is designed to eliminate zoning barriers Therefore, zoning changes required during implementation of the proposal applies and is applicable to land area outside of this boundary.
Where the Square begins and the Square ends is important and should be defined.
The city is heavily investing in what businesses consider Indirect Costs. It is also important for us to identify what Direct Services are required in implementing the proposal. I do not say I have the sole franchise on intelligence; however, there is empirical evidence that the proposal is incomplete.
Having to prepare more specific information in detail outlining the extent or parameters of the proposal does not appear unreasonable. A vote, gaining a majority can only enhance support by all resulting in a favorable outcome for years to come. One can even relate to the voters how the increase in number of new residents are to be phased in.
Ms. Breen, It is puzzling that you do not understand “gaslighting.” It is quite a simple concept as defined by the American Psychological Association. Manipulating residents into doubting their own misgivings about the Watertown Square plan by suggesting or asserting that what they see or feel is not based in reality is “gaslighting.”
Examples of gaslighting include: outright lying, obfuscating information, scapegoating, and coercion. Foundationally, it is a manipulation tactic whose objective is to trivialize or discredit a person’s or group’s perceptions.
The term gaslighting comes from a 1938 play by Patrick Hamilton. A thriller set in the 1880’s, the plot revolves around a devious husband who tries to convince his wife that she is insane by manipulating the gaslights in their home and telling her that she is imaging what she clearly sees.
I lit the play at the Charlestown Working Theatre in 1984.
Mr. Younger is absolutely correct. And it doesn’t matter a whit that he lost the Council President race or by what margin. When you are right, you are right.
Representative government that is responsive to its citizens is the best government and it is the American ideal.
Having a referendum on the November ballot for the Watertown Square Plan would accomplish several things. It would ensure that the city and its consultants tweak the plan and address concerns so that the plan would gain a substantial majority. (Not just listen to critiques, but actually incorporate and adjust in the plan.)
Our municipal government would have to convince voters that they got it right. This would be a healthy exercise in democracy and civic participation. The plan is momentous–one of the biggest changes Watertown has seen in a century–and deserves to have the clear and unequivocal backing of the people.
Putting the Watertown Square Plan to a vote would serve as a model of how a municipal government can serve its constituents. It would be a profound example of real rather than lip service democracy.
Finally the referendum might signal the end of an unfortunate era in Watertown government where the views of a majority of citizens were roundly ignored. There is still much lingering cynicism and distrust. A referendum would be a very healthy step toward healing the town and putting us on the road to greater trust and a better future.
So “representative government” is when they do what you want. When they don’t, we don’t follow this model anymore?
No sir. You are completely misrepresenting my point and are way out of touch.
There are those in positions to make decisions who have no understanding of their responsibilities and are pursuing their own agendas.
There are many folks who care deeply about Watertown and have worthwhile things to say. Many of them feel that appointed officials shouldn’t look down on them and their opinions.
Your characterizations of people in power are not supported by facts, but are rooted in emotions. You disagree with the choices being proposed and you are questioning the very system of government because of it. Not good. And the charge that someone is “out of touch” because you disagree with them?
Exactly what you might expect from a career civil servant. Not just myself, but many disagree with a long history of choices. Civil servants need to serve those who pay their salaries, not pursue their own agendas.
Jane Jacobs is my ideal of citizen activism against an arrogant and destructive bureaucrat.
We have had what many in town consider poor decisions about development in the past. I stand resolutely by my characterization of certain hires and appointees and I believe many would agree.
How long has it been since you have lived in Watertown?
Joe, Jane Jacobs ideas on bottom-up development are directly linked to the gentrification trends that you rail on here about. You cry on and on about affordable housing for families and co-ops etc… and you idolize someone’s ideas that directly lead to the gentrification of areas where they are implemented (greenwich village, etc..)
To paraphrase the venerable John Stewart,
I’ve always thought that in a democracy, and again I don’t know as I’ve only lived in this country, that there’s a process we follow…
In local government, those processes are laid out in our Home Rule Charter and include citizen-led petitions, initiatives, and referendums.
Additionally, per the Charter, “the city council may of its own motion… submit to the voters at any regular city election for adoption or rejection any measure in the same manner and with the same force and effect as are hereby provided for submission by petitions of voters.”
It’s thereby entirely appropriate to request that the council consider such an action before otherwise undertaking a signature drive. Sure, in a “representative government” we entrust our elected (and appointed) officials to regularly make decisions on our behalf; asking citizens of even a small city, to vote on every issue, would be laughably inefficient. But let’s not suggest that’s the end-all. We have certainly other means, typically reserved for matters of greater importance, for citizens to explicitly approve or deny of specific measures.
Our manager has proudly stated that the public engagement around the Watertown Square Plan is greater than any he’s experienced in local government. That alone should highlight its importance to residents. Despite this lengthy process it’s unclear whether there’s significant consensus among citizens. A referendum would certainly provide clarity.
It’s unfortunate to see neighbors, nevermind a former councilor, claim that such endeavors run counter to the public interest or are “outside of the system of government we have”.
If searching for examples of gaslighting, one might simply look to this thread.