BC Busing Students to Pack the Audience at BRA Board Meeting

Boston College's 10-year Institutional Master Plan goes to the Boston Redevelopment Authority's Board Thursday afternoon for a public hearing and likely vote.

Word out of the Chestnut Hill campus is that BC officials are trying to pack the room with students, going so far as providing a bus direct from campus to City Hall.

Alumni have been emailed in a last-minute attempt to deluge City Hall with support. And BC employees who live in Brighton have been contacted directly to ask them to attend and speak at the hearing.

The last time BC used hard-ball tactics like these, Mayor Thomas Menino was none-too-pleased.

Jack Dunn, Director of Public Affairs at BC, called for students to attend in Monday's edition of The Heights, the BC student newspaper:

Dunn encouraged students to attend the meeting in support of the IMP.

"It's a public hearing. Anyone can go. Anyone can speak, and they hear all voices," Dunn said. "We would encourage members of the BC community, students, faculty, and staff to support the plan."

The editorial board of The Heights further called for students to attend.

Those general appeals were followed up by an official email from Judy Robinson, Assistant Dean for Student Development ("off-campus dean"), which was sent out to many undergraduate students to notify them that one (or more?) buses would be running them from campus direct to City Hall for Thursday's hearing.

Who arranged the full-sized bus to convey the students direct to Mayor Menino's digs? None other than the Office of Governmental and Community Affairs at BC, who wants students to "be a presence" at the meeting, according to the email. Packing the hearing room with students doesn't sound like a very community-friendly program, does it?

Email appeals went out to BC alumni this week asking them to contact city government (both the BRA and the Allston-Brighton coordinator of the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services) to express last-minute support for the university's IMP; they were also encouraged to attend the BRA hearing Thursday, thereby further packing the room.

This week's alumni appeal email was written by Thomas Keady, Jr., Vice President for Governmental and Community Affairs, and John Feudo, Associate VP of the BC Alumni Association.

Last June, Mayor Menino objected strongly to William Leahy, S.J., President of BC, sending letters to BC alumni encouraging them to write or call the BRA to submit public comments.

Keady doesn't appear to be satisfied with packing the hearing room with just students and alumni. He is reportedly personally calling BC employees who live in Brighton to twist their arms to attend. One such recipient of Keady's tactics felt manipulated by such a high-ranking BC official, realizing that he had little choice but to attend. There were many such BC employees in attendance at the BC Task Force meeting earlier this month, sitting towards the back, mostly silently.


Image of tour buses by Proggie provided through a Creative Commons license.

Third Time's A Charm: Mayor Menino Blasts BC's Undergraduate Housing Plan For Third Straight Day

Three days, three stories. A three-day news cycle. Mayor Thomas Menino is extremely unhappy with Boston College, their institutional master plan, and the "arrogance" of the university's leaders.

Monday, Banker & Tradesman reported that Mayor Menino called BC's plan to house all their undergraduates "double speak" -- because they would do so partly with off-campus, not on-campus, housing. Tuesday, the Boston Herald refers to his dislike for BC's tactics in trying to win approval for their IMP, particularly the email and/or letter that they sent to alumni asking those in Boston to contact city and elected officials to express their opinions on the IMP.

And now, in Wednesday's edition of the Boston Globe (advance version on boston.com), Mayor Menino blasts the overall process that BC has followed in dealing with the neighborhood and city officials:

More broadly, Menino deplored BC's tactics in advancing their proposals, saying the college has not heeded doubts expressed by the neighborhood and the city.

"Confrontation doesn't work," he said. "I'm saying to them, 'Let's work together and stop pitting people against each other.' There has to be a balance between the interests of the city and the college."

While Mayor Menino expressed similar dislike for BC's tactics in Tuesday's Herald article, he went a step further in Wednesday's Globe article by expressing outright opposition to two of BC's proposals: conversion of the recently-purchased apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue into an off-campus undergraduate dormitory and construction of undergraduate "Brighton Dorms" on the former St. John's Seminary land purchased by BC from the Archdiocese of Boston in 2004-7:

In a wide-ranging and sharply worded criticism of the plan, Menino said that he squarely opposes the college's recent proposal to convert a high-rise apartment building about one-third of a mile from the Jesuit university's main Chestnut Hill campus into a dormitory.

Menino also faulted BC's plans to build new dorms on property it purchased from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, and disputed the college's contention that it cannot fit more students on its traditional campus.

"I want them to build on the campus they have right now, not buy up property and turn it into a dormitory," he said in an interview.

At Monday night's public meeting of the BC Neighbors Forum, there was some discussion about the extent of the Mayor's opposition to either or both of BC's housing proposals. His direct quotation as it appeared in the Banker & Tradesman story did not express outright opposition to either proposal, but instead he said that he would "rather see them live up to their commitment to house all of the students on campus.” Maybe only a preference -- possibly even a strong preference -- but not clear opposition.

The Globe story put such word parsing to bed. Mayor Menino opposes both, unequivocally. And, on top of that, he wants BC to find space on their main campus in order to locate the new dorms adjacent to their current dorms.


A Tale of Two Letters

Tuesday I wrote of a June 24, 2008 letter written by Fr. William Leahy, S. J., President of Boston College, to BC alumni. The letter appears to have been sent to an Atlanta alumnus, who wrote about it on his "Eagle in Atlanta" blog on June 26th. The letter reads, in part:

In particular, I ask that those of you who are residents of Boston express your support to elected officials, especially district city councilors and the BRA.

That language makes it clear that the letter is addressed to some alumni who live outside of Boston, but that the request for an expression of support was only made to those recipients who are also residents of Boston.

Wednesday's Globe story refers to a June 27, 2008 letter:

Menino took particular exception to a recent effort by BC administrators to lobby city officials in support of the plan. In a June 27 letter, president William P. Leahy wrote that it would be "most beneficial to have expressions of support from Boston College alumni and employees who live in the city of Boston."

Those words quoted by the Globe in the June 27th letter do not appear in the June 24th letter, hence they appear to be two different letters -- not a separate mailing of the same letter nor a mixed-up date in the Globe story. (UPDATE: a reader provided a copy of the June 27th letter, which indicates it is wholly distinct from the June 24th one. The text is not only different, but the June 27th letter also includes a long list of contact names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses for municipal officials as well as city and state elected officials.)

When Jack Dunn, Director of Public Affairs at BC, told the Globe that "Leahy's letter was sent only to BC employees and graduates who live in Allston-Brighton, as well as a small number of graduates who live in other parts of the city," it is more likely that he was referring only to the June 27th letter -- while presumably selectively avoiding discussing the June 24th letter (which appears to have been distributed more widely).


Boston Herald Weighs In, But Misses the Story

The Boston Herald came in with another article Wednesday, "Mayor: BC off track with dorm plan," in which they report that Mayor Menino "stopped short of saying BC needs to back out of the apartment-building deal" which closed last Monday. "They've purchased it... I'll always work with BC," said Mayor Menino.

The Herald's reporting did not note, however, whether or not the Mayor supports BC's proposal to convert their newly-purchased apartment building into an undergraduate dormitory -- a glaring omission.

Wednesday's Globe story filled in the gaps by noting his opposition to the dormitory conversion plan, not the purchase itself. "I want them to build on the campus they have right now, not buy up property and turn it into a dormitory," he said.


Image of Boston Globe by ckirkman provided through a Creative Commons license.

Do BC Students Behave Well in Off-Campus, Large Apartment Buildings?

Father William Leahy, S. J., President of Boston College, recently told Boston Herald reporters and editors in a meeting that "larger apartment buildings which also host numbers of BC students rarely encounter the same kind of problems" as found in 1- or 2-family houses occupied by students.

For those unclear what those "problems" are, according to the Herald, Fr. Leahy said they are the "ones with absentee landlords and no one to ride herd over student behavior or those weekend parties." The Boston Globe editorial board is more direct: "The students have a well-earned reputation for hard drinking and loud partying."

Do BC students in large, off-campus apartment buildings really behave so much better than those off-campus students in 1- and 2-family houses, as Fr. Leahy claims?


Testing the Leahy Hypothesis

In a meeting earlier this year, a BC official stated that around 40% of the residents of the apartment tower at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue in Brighton are BC undergraduate students. Sounds like a good test case for the "Leahy Hypothesis" -- that the students would be comparatively well-behaved in a tall, off-campus building.



A quick trip to "apartmentratings.com" produces 20 resident-supplied ratings for the apartment complex, only 20% of which would recommend the apartments to someone wanting to rent. Out of all the apartments listed when entering zipcode "02135" and having more than one review, 2000 Commonwealth Avenue comes out in last place in the user-ratings.

The written comments on the website are disturbing and describe an awful living experience:

"Noisy and worse...": Almost any night of the week parties can spill into the halls. It is literaly threating to have such drunkin people wandering loudly around the building.

"I wasted $54,000 over the last 2 years": But over the last year and a half management seems to have lost control. I now paying top dollar to live in the "ANIMAL HOUSE". If you like to party all night and don't plan on sleeping for your entire stay here then move on in. Otherwise, stay away. I'm "OUT OF HERE ASAP"!!!

"It is a dorm!": Now for the negative, it is a dorm! Most of the building is BC students that love to party and don't care a whole lot if they blast thier bass all night long! Keg parties, beers in the elevator, students running up and down the hallway, breaking things. Trash left in halls, puke in the elevator.

"Stay Away from This 'Luxury' Dorm!!!": This is a real DORM for spoiled boston college kids... If you are older than 21 and have a job - STAY AWAY from this place. IT IS NIGHTMARE!!! All that bs below about "couple bad apples" is simply NOT true. Come and see by yourself after 10pm on Friday or Saturday.

"Noisy Dorm": The sole problem (and it's a BIG problem) is with some of the BC students. The few bad apples made living in the building unbearable. They had loud parties to all hours of the night, left garbage where ever they felt like it and generally had no respect for their neighbors. Most of the BC students were not like that, but because such a huge portion of the residents are BC students, the small percentage of "bad apples" made up a fairly sizable group.

"Stay Away... Really": I also warn parents that are considering a lease for their precious indulged babies that this is a building infested with unruly parties. I wish could show a video of the drunken idiots in the halls.

"BAD": Biggest mistake of my life. I am going to have to break my lease...late night parties..vomit on floors...beer cans on elevator floors...just a few of the problems...not LIKE a dorm...WORSE than a dorm..

It goes on.

But one person seems to think otherwise:

"Pool and Parking!!!! And an ATM...": Any time there has ever been a noise complaint (and maybe I've only had 2...same as any other building I've ever lived in) the 24 hour concierge responds immediately and the noise stops within 5 minutes.

though "Pool and Parking" seems to be drowned out by all the spilled beer in the other reports of hard partying.

I think the evidence is sufficient to reject the Leahy Hypothesis. I am convinced: I'll never move there.

Maybe Fr. Leahy ought to spend some quality time with his charges at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue before making such claims. And the editorial board of the Boston Herald might think about fact-checking their interviewee's claims prior to publication.


Why Would Fr. Leahy Make Such a Claim?

Why would a prominent BC official be making a claim that seems, in retrospect, at least a bit divorced from reality? As part of their institutional master plan, BC has proposed to house an additional 610 undergraduate students on-campus -- but leave another 600 or so undergraduate students still living off-campus. Something still needs to be done about those other 600 off-campus, partying students.

BC's idea seems to be that, by restricting those remaining off-campus students from living in 1- or 2-family houses, they will not cause the neighbors to complain endlessly about the partyers next door. (Their off-campus, restricted-housing proposal has been presented at meetings, but not formally in any document.)

Here's an even more cynical idea: BC thinks that all they have to do is move the students out of the particular neighborhoods with the most complainers. At Brighton community meeting after community meeting, the complaining neighbors are typically from the Radnor Road area (including upper Foster Street, Lane Park, and Kirkland Road) or the Lake Street area (including Undine Road and Caltha Road). I've looked at many lists of attendees, and they just don't come from 2000 Commonwealth Avenue. The meeting attendees come from the streets listed above -- themselves living in 1- and 2-family houses, mostly not big apartment buildings.

Why don't community attendees come from such large apartment buildings? Non-student renters in such buildings are typically, albeit not exclusively, residents who are more "transient," i.e., they often move every year or two. They may live in Brighton this year, but last year they were in Allston, and two years from now they might be in Jamaica Plain. Such renters are, on average, younger, may not know much about the neighborhood, be less likely to know who to complain to (at the city, police, or BC), be unclear on what their rights are regarding noise disturbances, etc. They could potentially also fear retribution from residents in the same building.

It's a common issue probably faced by many communities: community activists tend to be of a certain age. Twenty-somethings just aren't a regular part of community meetings, even though they constitute such a large fraction of our neighborhood's residents.

In the end, BC's proposal for restricting students' off-campus options sure looks to be pitting one part of the neighborhood (residents who live in 1- or 2-family houses) against another (residents who live in larger apartment buildings). We'll see if the neighborhood takes the bait. I bet they don't.


Compare Off-Campus and On-Campus Behavior

In the most bizarre aspect of this story, BC officials have been presenting the case for the on-campus housing in their master plan using the opposite argument.

Time after time, the community has been told that on-campus BC students behave worse in tall dormitories, but better in housing with four stories (or fewer). BC officials insist on not increasing the height of the undergraduate dormitories on their Main Campus using this argument despite plea after plea from the neighbors.

Why would these students behave poorly in a tall, on-campus dorm -- but magically behave better in a tall, off-campus apartment building? As described above, at least one tall, off-campus apartment -- without resident advisors, BC police, or patrolling campus officials -- seems to be quite a problem, so claiming otherwise is just a sleight-of-hand.

But put the same building on campus, add back in the resident advisors, police, and officials, institute an alcohol policy, and... voila! Common sense dictates that it could only be better on-campus, not worse. But, then again, why would we want to listen to common sense?