(Updated April 13: the number of units allowed in the Watertown Square Zoning was corrected to 4,423 (from 3,701) after confirming in the approved Watertown Square Area Plan)
By Linda Scott
Watertown Resident
After attending the April 6th meeting on potential changes to Watertown Square and reviewing comments to my Watertown News Letter entitled “How Honest is our Development Process?”, I decided to tackle the issue of government honesty and transparency head on, with real life, current examples.
First, I’d like to thank commenters for your thoughtful takes. And for. those who’ve served on City committees like the Watertown Charter Review Committee, I give a special thanks! The few months that I spent on the Watertown Blue Ribbon Commission were enough to convince me that this is a lot of work!!
I appreciate your efforts to make our government function in a more honest and transparent manner, and I’m sure that you and your colleagues made positive changes that will be felt for many years to come, but it’s my experience that there’s still more work to be done.
Here’s my take:
I can relate to the Watertown experiences many have described, experiences that have left you scratching your head, wondering what was just agreed to, or wondering if your input was even considered.
Sadly, these moments did not end with the start of a new administration. We’ve experienced quite a few “moments of opacity” when dealing with our City government, both before and after George Proakis became our City Manager.
A City Logo:
One of those governmental “lack of transparency” moments that you might remember was the development of a city logo. George spearheaded this project, which lacked the involvement of the councilors or the community until it was a “done deal,” and a limited and controlled amount of residents were asked to weigh in. One resident’s survey comment:
“There is a FlashVote asking for input on which of 4 versions of this logo people prefer. Not sure why this project has continued without community input until – ‘which version of this logo do you prefer?’
The comments in this thread were clear, sensible and seemingly went completely unheard. I love Watertown & many of the things happening here. I do not support a logo that can induce migraines – especially when it says nothing about Watertown.”
To see more about this: https://www.watertownmanews.com/2025/03/11/letter-so-what-happened-to-the-logo-project/
The End Result:
That logo was scrapped, because the process wasn’t transparent with the City Council and the public. What’s more, the City’s analysis of the limited residential survey results were misleading to the Council. Comments proved that resident approval was mediocre at best. That was discovered by councilors at a Watertown City Council committee meeting.
Because of this, at least $20,000 of taxpayer money was misspent. I’ve been told that George still believes he had the right to unilaterally design our City’s logo.
I’ll leave you with that one example for now. There are more.
Big Changes to the Watertown Square Parking Lot?
As for the April 6 meeting to discuss possible changes (a five story parking garage) to the Watertown Square parking lot, people showed up in a really meaningful way, and George did one of the things he does best … speak in public.
He is a talented man, and it’s been my experience that many people cannot succeed at working in the back and front of the house. George is comfortable with both.
I can appreciate many things about George Proakis. I especially liked his thoughtfully written series on parking, a brilliant example of transparency! It remains to be seen how transparent he and the City staff are on this potential Watertown Square future project.
As was pointed out by one commenter, the Charter Review Committee worked hard to make our government run more transparently, and I’m with you on that!
How the Lack of Informational Transparency for Residents and Councilors Can Affect City Decisions
When the April 6th meeting was announced, there was nothing tangible submitted for residents to focus on in preparation for this meeting.
I wrote and published a letter in Watertown News, and based upon the little knowledge we had from previous meetings, I made a “guesstimate” of what the project would involve that turned out to be fairly on the mark.
This was my attempt to give residents a place to start when thinking about this development project since none was provided. Providing limited access to details is a subtle, but effective way to limit community interest and involvement.
It’s my fear, from multiple past experiences with our current city government, that George will be asking our City Council to commit to this massive project without a complete set of details or complete resident buy in … just trust George and the developers.
Do We Have Anything to Compare This To?
Think city logo on steroids, (see above).
How about a State MBTA plan for 1,701 housing units that “somehow” never reached Watertown City Councilors’ desks as an option, even though they requested it from George?
Or how about learning, by accident and from a professional journal featuring our City Manager, that instead of zoning for the 3,133 housing units that was an agreement between Watertown citizens and their city councilors, we learn that the housing number is now at 4,423 units? Then how about learning that not even our City Councilors, the ones who voted for the 3,133, were informed of the change? End result: Still to be determined.
How about money allocated by our city manager in the 2027 City budget for Flock cameras, without specifically saying so? Alert retired District A City Councilor Angie Kounelis caught that one.
Not including the community from the get-go in allocating City money for a highly controversial diminishment of privacy caused quite a community uproar. Wouldn’t it have been better to be honest and upfront with the community from the start? End result: Meetings were scheduled. Flock was scrapped. City time wasted.
Do you see a pattern here?? When transparency flies out the window, the result is chaos, inefficiency, wasted time and money, and an unhappy community.
How Can our Councilors Ensure Transparency When Considering this Watertown Square Project?
The Councilors have their own responsibility to be vigilant in this regard. Whether you like the overall concept for the CVS parking lot or not, we should urge our City Council to insist that this entire project is clearly defined and transparent and involves our whole community.
And, importantly, not until all of our residents are approached to weigh in, (and weigh in in a way that isn’t manipulated to get the “desired result,” See city logo) should Councilors vote for or against this development project. It’s the transparent thing to do, and as we’ve seen, bad things happen when transparency is side-stepped.
Now, more than ever, we need our City Councilors to step up, ask lots of questions, demand complete answers and challenge assumptions, reach out to all of their constituents, and not simply use a few questions to rubber stamp this project. These times are too financially fraught, and our City’s needs are too great.
We saw the public interest on April 6, a packed and engaged room. It’s only fair to include our whole community in a decision that will “define Watertown Square’s future.”
So, we are going to try something new with comments. In addition to signing your full name, please indicate where you live or how you describe yourself, such as Watertown Resident, former Watertown Resident, from Waltham, etc. That way people can get an idea “where you are coming from,” both literally and figuratively.
Thanks,
Charlie Breitrose, Watertown News Editor
Thank you for adding this designation to comments Charlie. I have had growing concerns about “outsider comments” (sorry I can’t come up with a better word) to Watertown News articles. My admitted bias – I want to hear the concerns and viewpoints of my fellow residents, city and business employees, employers, and property owners. We all have a stake in Watertown and a right to share our viewpoints/comments on various issues. Whether pro or con, the articles/letters/comments all contribute to a deeper understanding as to what’s going on in our townish-city, people’s take on various issues, and hopefully constructive dialogue. Bravo!
Thanks Elodia. I will add that comments are welcome from people in Watertown and people not in Watertown.
Charlie
Editor Watertown News
Honestly Charlie if folks are not connected by residency, employment, or development to Watertown in some tangible way – why must we read their often snarky commentary? I subscribe to several newsletters similar to yours from surrounding communities to glean info regarding issues, best practices, new ideas. I have reached out privately to people for further information that may be useful in relation to issues in our community. But I would never seek to insert myself in any other community’s issues or discussions especially with the attitude that keeps popping up. We have plenty to deal with in Watertown and I truly value the comments from our community. Watertown News, aside from local news happenings, has become kind of a virtual community gathering spot and a temperature gauge as to what is effecting the quality of life here. My guess is that since Covid this platform has become a more complex undertaking to manage. Hat tip to you Charlie. You and we continue to evolve. I am grateful for all your efforts on behalf of our community and to the contributors/commentators who share their insights, concerns, and issues.
I still welcome everyone who follows the rules.
Thanks, as ever, Linda, for your thoughts and your research.
One thing that was reiterated at the meeting (per Charlie’s detailed write-up) was the roll the Council will play, by statute:
“The City Council has a dual role, as the Council and the Redevelopment Authority. The Planning Board and the City’s legal counsels will also have a role in the approval process.
“The Plan outlined the roles and responsibilities.
“’The City Council is responsible for adopting any zoning changes that the City may undertake in response to the recommendations in this Plan. The Council also approves infrastructure improvements throughout the city and is the primary legislative authority. The Council also adopts the City budget,’ the Plan reads.”
The Council can’t “not know”, or can’t claim to “not know”, any detail. They will be making the decisions, for better or worse—but as they are our elected representative, for the better, I think!
Josh Passell
Current Watertown Resident
Hi Josh,
Sorry this response is so late, but I knew I was working on something that might relate to your comment. I refer you to my newest letter today: Numbers, Numbers, and is a parking garage coming to the square. It might relate some of the communication issues that I see forthcoming, even with our Council having the ultimate authority.
Linda Scott, Watertown resident
My wife and I live in Watertown at Hamilton Place, facing beautiful Saltonstall park. We’ve had a place here for 14 years. We’re now here full time, having sold our upstate NY house of 46 years 2 years ago.
I agree with Linda. Personally, I don’t like the plan to eliminate the easy to use parking lot and replace it with a multi story garage. I suspect others who use the lot will agree, and it’s important to aks us all, which has not been done yet, why not? Also, I’m not sure why Mr. Proakis and the council feel the urgent need to build more aparments there. Our area is already crowded with traffic, do we need to use city resources to increase our population? The new zoning plan will do that without the city’s intervention.
Finally, the transparency issue bothers me. Although the council and Mr. Proakis have said at and after the recent meeting that no decisions have been made and that they want feedback, it strains credulity to make this claim. And releasing the detailed plan the day after the meeting instead of in advance of the meeting was a calculated decision, adding to the feeling that this is a done deal.
40 year Watertown resident.
Thank you Linda for your posts. You are a skilled communicator and observationist. I know, I know what some are going to say, but it should be a word.
Anyway, changing the zoning from the 3,133 to 3,701 as was previously agreed by the city counselors is a big deal. It does bring up valid concerns about what else don’t we know about. I can understand the George has a lot of past experience and probably a lot of frustration with the slowness of the process, we all can relate to that, but DETAILS MATTER. Good things take time and to get things right we can’t skip on that.
I have asked that this parking garage not come out to Main St. It should be well set back and that the space above the store fronts be open space that is accessible for hanging out to view the Watertown Savings bank and Watertown Sq. area. There could be planters of greenery, art exhibits, nice lighting, places to bring food and drink from the local establishments. All accessible from the Merchant walk between the Otis building and CVS. I also think that the Watertown common should not have any vendor boths. It should remain open park like space.
Hi David and other commentators,
As noted in a previous post by Linda -https://www.watertownmanews.com/2026/03/30/op-ed-calling-all-everyday-citizen-heroes-for-the-watertown-square-meeting/ the changing zoning numbers are concerning. ”And then there’s one of the latest (October 2025) in a long line of Proakis/Speck self-promotional efforts using the City of Watertown in the CNU (Congress for the New Urbanism) Journal. In it, it appears that the number of housing units has mysteriously changed once again. See: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2025/10/17/watertown-plans-main-square-transformation
The Journal reports that according to the Watertown development/planning team (Utile, Speck, Dempsey and Stantec), “Watertown responded to a request for 1701 new housing units by allowing 4,423 units instead.” 1701 to 4,423 housing units? So, which is it, George…1701…6,320, the “compromise number” reached with the residents of 3,133, or this new never-before-heard-of number of 4,423? Keeping up with the numbers is quite dizzying.”
I think it is time for a simple, ongoing community scorecard regarding housing. Let’s list all the units that have been built since 2020 (our MBTA mandate is based on 10% of 17010) by address, total number of units, number of inclusionary zoning units, unit sizes, and rental rate range in the MBTA catchment area. Then let’s add the number of pending units going through the approval process. By my count right now there’s a revised project on Spring Street, three projects on Mount Auburn, a project on Water Street, and another project on Main Street at the Lewandos building. Correct me if have made a mistake or I have missed something. And please note I have not included the Watertown Housing Authority Willow Park project as it is not in the catchment area.
Watertown cannot solve all the metro Boston housing issues but realize we are certainly stepping to the plate again. Note: The state mandates that a community meet a 10% affordable housing goal under Chapter 40B, or alternately, has affordable housing inventory on 1.5 percent of the community’s total land area. That community is designated a Safe Harbor community. I do not know our present affordable unit count (scorecard request) but I do know we exceeded the 1.5 per cent years ago.
P.S. David, I agree regarding the vendor booths. How about we emulate Europe with public toilets?
Hi David,
Thanks for your compliments! They made my day! I refer to Josh’s comment about the garage plans as they stand now. it looks like the garage is back a bit on the property. You’re showing your artistry with the comments about details like lighting, greenery and art installations.
In terms of what we (and perhaps councilors) don’t know, I’ve submitted something to Charlie today for review. If you think 3,133 to 3,701 is a big deal…
Linda Scott, Watertown resident
As I read the sketches, the parking garage, if and when it is built, will be sited behind existing buildings on Main Street, specifically the Armenian Library and Museum. That building is probably tall enough to shield anyone on Main from even seeing it. But I do wholeheartedly agree with your image of the sidewalks of Main feeling more like a pedestrian mall next to a roadway, rather than a commuter artery with barely passable foot traffic.
Josh Passell, still a Watertown resident
I have lived in Watertown for 54 years and for most of that time I have been a home owner. I attended the presentation on April 6. There’s obviously been a lot of time and money spent on plans and drawings and deals to put a five-story parking garage on the CVS parking lot, and build another large apartment along Spring Street. We were shown slides of other cities that have experienced this improvement. I do not want this ‘improvement’ in Watertown. I am very much against it. The room was full at the library to hear about these plans, but that represents only a small percentage of Watertown residents that need to learn about this and express their opinion. I am looking forward to the next forum where we get to do this.
Hi Lynn,
I hear you loud and clear! This is what experience brings to the table. See you at the next meeting.
Linda Scott, Watertown resident
Charlie thanks for your statement about the new policy. I’m glad you aren’t bowing to the pressure to censure comments from those of us who grew up in and served Watertown but no longer live there. We care enough to still weigh in on the community we love. I’ve never understood why some people are so triggered by that.
Paul Fahey
Former Watertown Resident
Hi Paul,
I think that the objection is that there can be a feeling of distance if you don’t live in Watertown when you comment. It appears to give some people license to be insulting and cast aspersions on people that you don’t know or expect to bump into at the grocery store, for instance.
I’ve recently experienced you negatively (and incorrectly) hinting at my political views, for instance, by using techniques like dog whistling. This just distracts from the legitimate conversation that is happening. It’s America and it’s Charlie’s site, so you have a bit of license and leeway here. But please do not think that you are adding substantively to the conversation when you routinely disparage and belittle people and their opinions.
Knowing where you live (or in your case knowing where you used to live) will at least give some context to and take some of the sting out of the thoughtless remarks that you make.
Linda Scott, Watertown resident
So apparently the only conversations that are “legitimate” are the ones that support your views. You are correct that this is America and that we have freedom of speech and expression, which includes my ability to respond to people’s posts as I wish within normal limits. I have no issues with how Charlie moderates the site and I am fine with identifying myself as a former Watertown resident (who is in town on a very regular basis.) Would my remarks trigger you less if I still lived there?
Paul Fahey, Former Watertown Resident
No Paul, the only “legitimate” conversations are ones that deal with the issue at hand…not personalities.
Linda Scott, Watertown resident
Not to be the resident density bore (proudly guilty!), but if all 4,423 units were built ( a big if, I understand and certainly hope), and estimated to house an average of 2.5 people per unit, that would add about 11,000 people to Watertown’s 35,500 population, and jack up the population density to 11,600 residents per sq. mi. We would leapfrog Revere (no easy task, try it!) to 8th densest city in the Commonwealth, and be hot on the heels of Lawrence for 7th. Watertown Square’s density would be off the charts: 11,000 additional residents in, what, maybe a half-mile by half-mile area, i.e. a square quarter-mile. Good thing we have a brand-spanking-new T stop in the Square to serve that massive popul—wait, what? We don’t? Huh, how…?
We’ve increased the target of “by right” development by more than two and a half times ABOVE the mandated minimum WITHOUT increasing our area or our transportation options. As the line from the movie Dodgeball goes: “That’s a bold strategy, Cotton, let’s see if it pays off.”
30 year Watertown resident….AM Galen St commuter from Pike to Watertown Square 730 am weekdays and weekends.
Great Point Josh!
My experience: Since the new building, lights and bus stop have been moved it takes me 15-18 minutes to get from the pike through the Square to Main St. (most people still haven’t figured out there are two left lanes) so cars are backed up, and like this morning that huge garbage truck making a left turn onto California St. (during prohibited hours). And this is without the added 4423 units of which, lets be realistic, most of the dwellers in the units will have at least one car.
I got 99 problems and this is one; insane traffic.
Hi Christopher,
I hear you! I was just talking with a neighbor. It was 8:00 in the morning and he’d just dropped his first grader (his oldest!) off at school. (We’re over by the Police Station). He says after getting the kids on track for the day and getting into his car to get to work (there’s no transit to where he goes), sometimes the traffic is backed up on Main Street to Lexington Street. The poor guy looked exhausted and defeated already!
Linda Scott, Watertown Resident
Rita Colafella, born, bred, here till I am dead.
Will this rule apply to Newton residents as they have frequently shared opinions here and at City Hall meeting? (e.g. Delta Renaming) I don’t care either way, just make it consistent. If the rule is identify outsiders, then it should apply to every single issue. If it is don’t identify outsiders, then no need for this. We cannot cherry-pick when we want to leverage outsiders or discount them.
As for my opinions, I really like density, I like the mix of logos (traditional seal to more abstract), I hate parking garages, and I really hate public cameras.
If they are commenting on Watertown News, yes the identifying will apply.
At a meeting, that is up to the City or the organizer.
Thanks for the update. I would like it to be consistent across all stories, one way or the other. I know it is different at city hall. Though that is where non-residents should not comment since they are not residents. I wouldn’t attend a Newton or Belmont Town Meeting because I don’t live there, pay taxes/fees/rent, etc.
Hi Rita,
I like your tag line!
We’re two for four…ditto on parking garages and ditto on public cameras.
Linda Scott, Watertown resident
The April 6 meeting was the example of transparency this letter calls for. There isn’t a “definitive” plan for a garage or for the housing on Winter Street to present to the public. That meeting was to talk about the broad outlines of the project – where a garage and housing could be built, and where it couldn’t (because of water/property lines, etc.). As stated, any definitive details have to go before the council acting as the development authority, the planning board, and then the council again. Those public forums are where public input occurs in a representative democracy. If you don’t like it, tell your councilor. Show up at the meetings. As for the tentative plan presented, I’m all for it. Clustering development downtown makes sense as does redoing the Galen/Main St/Mt. Auburn intersection, and allowing on-street parking on Main to make it more pedestrian friendly. As a 22-year Watertown resident, I would favor razing most of Main Street – one of the most unattractive downtowns in the region – and starting over.
And as for allowing “outsiders” to comment on our town – come on, people. Stop being so provincial. I’m interested in hearing from those who work/visit Watertown, but don’t necessarily live here. I’m also interested in what former residents still interested in their town have to say.
Hi John,
Thanks for sharing your opinions. You’re clear and to the point.
As far as transparency goes, I can see where you think that that meeting was perfect. I choose to look a little deeper into the matter. It takes all kinds!
Linda Scott, Watertown resident
I agree with most of what you said. People don’t know the definition of transparency Disclosing all information is not it. Negotiations involve holding information back – who wants to pay more? Knowing that there are negotiations – that is transparency!
I am also for raazing Main St with the exception the Library, City Hall, and a few buildings such as St Patrick’s, a nice example of Revival Gothic, and Watertown Savings Bank, very Northern Italian/Medician. It is shocking to come back into Watertown Sq from Boston. It is like entering 1882; I half expect Laura Ingalls to pop out. Even Cambridge has more modern elements and they blend well with historic ones.
I would prefer more on-street parking and larger sidewalks for bikes and pedestrians to a garage. Parallel parking is less difficult with rear view camera. I had to do it in Cambridge all the time without cameras.
As for the “outsiders,” I just prefer that they don’t speak at City Hall. It’s like me showing up to Belmont Town Hall and saying they need to change their form of government or to install a specific busline. They’d tell me to go home and rightfully so.