Dear Editor,
I write to express my dismay at some of the testimony at last night’s Committee on Economic Development and Planning. Council President Sideris was correct to bring this to the committee. This ordinance needs extensive re-writing to remove substantial subjectivity and clarify scope.
Councilor Piccirilli and Councilor Feltner constantly referred to the fuzziness of the ordinance. Councilor Piccirilli also pointed out that this board may not have appropriate authority to make such impositions. This observation plus everything from the definition of which type of delay to what is considered historically significant and worthy of preservation points to a poorly crafted ordinance.
Matt Walter from the Historic Preservation Commission disclosed that there is disagreement within the commission regarding the 50 year look back. I live in a house that was finished in Summer 1977 and there is nothing worth preserving for posterity — erected during the Summer of Sam?? It is so subjective. A 100 years look back, beyond the average human lifespan, seems more reasonable.
As the City Manager said, he is no fan of the model ordinance which recommends this 50 year look back. Per the model, a neighborhood of similarly designed/built houses is seen as characteristically unique. It is an ironic way to define uniqueness. I agree with the City Manager that this process should come early on and be seamlessly integrated. It should not be an onerous additional set of steps and back-and-forths. The reason there is pressure on this commission has to do more with the broken zoning process, which was pointed out by Sam Ghilardi. Rather than rely on the model ordinance, I do think a study to establish an inventory of “historically significant” stock or a commonly understood baseline is preferable. I don’t think it should begin in the West End.
Councilor Gannon, a fellow life-long resident, described the real daily life of the West End area. At that time, the West End was not one of interwar worker house occupants who walked to work in the town mills. The “cottage houses” were really starter homes for the upwardly mobile. This idea of honoring the worker by preserving this “worker cottage housing” becomes lip service when the average worker — the teacher, retail store employee, the gig worker — cannot afford to buy or rent in Watertown today. If we want to truly honor the worker, then how about giving that worker the opportunity to be a Watertown resident? Petrified houses currently owned by strongly embedded middle class residents do not do justice.
Finally, the city should absolutely be exempt from this ordinance. The framing of it as an equity issue between the homeowner and the city is not a premise into which I buy. The homeowner can seek relief in the court system. Property Rights are foundational in our English Common Law inheritance. It is not that the city has an advantage over the homeowner but rather that the city must have its abilities preserved. Unlike the city, the homeowner does not have a significant economic impact or policy impact. If the city needs to mobilize property for schooling or dispense with property to bring about dense affordable housing, then it should retain that ability. And yes, affordable housing will win over historical preservation. It should!
We have human beings without shelter and buildings like the Belmont-Watertown UMC sitting empty because a historically significant sanctuary has not made it feasible for affordable housing developers or market-rate developers to purchase it. The privilege of preserving such a thing does not trickle down to those sleeping outside in the alcoves of the BWUMC. Maybe one day some Nobel Peace Prize winner will say he slept in that alcove, but I much rather have had 50 families that are not here now say they grew up in Watertown. I write this as a resident and not a member of any group to which I belong.
Rita Colafella
Watertown Resident
I share the writer’s concern about affordable housing. That is perhaps the greatest concern facing our city at the moment. And how best to ameliorate the problem is not a simple question.
But the fact is that Watertown has done an extremely poor job of preserving historic buildings. The loss of the Shick House is one of the most recent and notable failures. That drama had many villains and took place in slow motion over decades. But the result was the permanent loss of a vital piece of Watertown history.
Preserving history is essential especially in an era when knowledge and mastery have been cheapened and degraded. (All the knowledge one might need can be gained in fifteen minutes on the internet!) Without an understanding of our history a persons and their community are profoundly lost.
Watertown has some profoundly beautiful housing stock and legacy buildings. If we don’t value that which remains, we will fulfill Oscar Wilde’s dictum about those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
We must preserve our legacy. We must build affordable housing. Both can be done simultaneously if we have the will, creativity and clarity of thought.
We need to think hard about what is historically significant and worth preserving and what is not. But once we allow a building to be demolished it is gone forever. This is an important debate. History matters.