Between Foster Rock and a Hard Place

There's a hard issue that has been the source of much angst in the Brighton community since Boston College put forward their draft institutional master plan in February. The issue is covered in dangerous shards of broken glass, just like the top of Foster Rock.

At the forum on Monday night, three candidates for the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council walked into the line of fire over this housing issue. Why? The potential support of the Portina Road Jewish Orthodox community -- and their friends -- lies on the line.

Boston College has proposed to put 70 -- now up to 90 -- beds of "graduate or seminarian housing" on the land next to the Foster Rock, a five-acre property across from the St. John's Seminary land proper, but nonetheless part of the 2004 land purchase from the Archdiocese of Boston. This property, at 188-192-196 Foster Street (where the large parcel is listed as 192), is currently classified under Article 51 of the zoning code as a Conservation Protection Subdistrict, but BC's 2006 IMPA put a BC master plan overlay allowing them to re-zone it under Article 80 of the zoning code. Three houses currently lie on one corner of the site; they would be razed to build the new housing.

Not very interesting. Yet.

The back side of the property abuts a series of houses on Portina Road, many of them owned by members of the Jewish Orthodox (Hasidic) community. This is a lovely road, full of large families and large numbers of children that can play in the street in the afternoon, early evening, and especially on Saturday. In fact, the children can make quite a scene on the Sabbath.

When they got wind in March of BC's proposal to build the housing, the Orthodox community was furious -- and started to get mobilized. This issue is far and away the biggest reason that Rabbi Rodkin and his congregants show up to neighborhood meetings on BC's institutional expansion. Needless to say, the Orthodox community opposes BC's proposal with the strongest language they can muster, worried that quiet "seminarian" housing could easily switch to noisier "graduate" students and then -- in the blink of an eye when no one is looking -- be converted to "undergraduate" housing. BRA officials have tried placating them, but no assurances of requiring master plan review before allowing change in the building occupancy seems to satisfy the Portina Road neighbors.

Simply put: the Orthodox community fears a loss of their very way of life by having their quiet, out-of-the-way one-way street turned into a higher-traffic thoroughfare -- and having students, of any kind, living within a stone's throw.

But wait, you say, there's no access to the property from the east, so BC's proposed housing on Foster Street shouldn't bring extra traffic to Portina Road (except for a bit of increased foot traffic). Last fall, however, somebody with heavy equipment removed the barricades and cleared the brush for a footpath along one side of BC's property, thereby opening up the undeveloped extension of Wiltshire Road. Adventurous drivers could now go directly between Portina Road and Foster Street. And some did. And the neighbors worried that their way of life really was about to change.

BC claimed they didn't open up the road, the city also denied it, and the missing barricade problem was in a logjam. A couple of gentleladies twisted arms, stepping past the office of then-District City Councilor Jerry McDermott to find assistance from At-Large Councilor Sam Yoon's office. Barricade returned, dirt road closed off again, the universe re-aligned.

But the problem of the proposed housing is still there. The broader community isn't quite sure where we stand on the issue: there are three nice houses c.1880s on one corner of the lot that ought not to be torn down in a neighborhood starving for single-family housing; BC's proposal already wisely avoids building on the Foster Rock itself; and maybe BC could be convinced to put a more positive development on the site, like faculty housing (which they seem to need, based on house purchases on Wade Street). I know; I led a community meeting in April which included this on the agenda.

Into this Orthodox-angst over BC's proposal walked the candidates during Monday's forum. As moderator, I posed the question, answered by three of the five candidates who showed up:

QUESTION: Boston College has proposed to build 90 beds of graduate student or seminarian housing next to the Foster Rock on property that abuts the Orthodox Jewish Community on Portina Road. As City Councilor, how would you address BC's proposal?

Tim Schofield and Mark Ciommo were given the question; under the rules of the forum, since Ciommo didn't take a strong position, another candidate, Rosie Hanlon, was given the chance to answer, too, and did.

Schofield had attended several meetings in the spring which included this project, had voiced a negative opinion about the project at the March meeting of the BC Task Force, and took a strong position opposing it:

SCHOFIELD: I'm opposed to the proposal... So it is really not fair to have this huge piece of property and you are going to put these units at the bottom of the hill of one of the most stable family neighborhoods we have in this community... So again, putting those uses there seems to me, once again, is not taking advantage of the space [BC has] for the appropriate uses. There is a place for that housing, but I don't think that's the location for it.

Schofield appears to have been assessing the relative merits of graduate student or seminarian housing on the former Seminary land (which already houses seminarians) and the Foster Street parcel (which he was rejecting).

Ciommo, on the other hand, was not in attendance at those neighborhood meetings in the Spring, wanted more information to determine where he would stand, and also seemed open to graduate students (not just seminarians):

CIOMMO: ... Graduate students, again, are a different demographic than undergraduate students. You might be adding young families to the neighborhood. In that case, I would look at the demographic proposed for that site. But I would also like to talk to the abutters on Portina Road and see what is acceptable to them. Actually see what the proposal is -- the scope and size of the project. And then make a decision. I want more facts before I make a decision like that.

Hanlon, as as member of the BC Task Force, was, like Schofield, aware of the nature of the project, and expressed a strong opinion that the project has minimal impact:

HANLON: It is my belief that it is seminarian housing and not graduate housing at the bottom of that. And there is low to no impact with that development... Low to no impact is something that we can look at. There is going to be give-and-take when it does come to the master plan, and this might be one of the tools that we can work with.

I am unable to understand fully her point in the last sentence, but it sounds like she was considering use of this property as a bargaining chip in future master plan negotiations.

The score: Schofield opposed the proposal, Ciommo had no position yet (but was open to graduate students), and Hanlon seems OK with the proposal as is. They stepped into the Orthodox minefield and set off some ordinance. Methinks some injury resulted from it.

I wonder if the Portina Road Orthodox community has yet heard about the candidate's positions? I can't imagine that they would be willing to accept a candidate who didn't come out in strong opposition to BC's proposal on this property.

Political insiders have been trying to handicap the Brighton Jewish vote for years, and this year is no different. While one insider expressed the seemingly obvious view that there was no way Schofield would win the Jewish vote, once the Orthodox bloc figures out who's on their side on this seminal seminarian housing issue, I bet Schofield's odds have improved significantly overnight. And as for Councilor Yoon who re-barricaded the extension of Wiltshire Road? He already carried Ward 22 / Precinct 9 in 2005 in the At-Large race. Since Yoon has also endorsed Schofield, the two are bound to help each other out in that neighborhood.

One Lawn Sign That Will Vote -- Many Times

"Lawn signs don't vote; people do." That is a standard mantra of local politics, an indication not to judge a political campaign by counting signs.

Over in Ward 22/Precinct 8, however, I recently saw a lawn sign that I think will vote -- and may bring a lot of votes along with it. It's a red sign for Greg Glennon for the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council race, and it's on the front lawn of Patrick Galvin, brother and long-time campaign manager for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin.

The Galvins, their inner political circle, and their broad base of supporters (Bill Galvin represented the neighborhood for many years in the State House prior to his election as Secretary) provide a base as big as anything over on Wallingford Road or Portina Road. And the Galvin team carries connections to those constituencies, too. Then Representative Galvin worked with the Brighton Orthodox community to build its eruv (completed in 1993), a point which they clearly remember. And sandwiched between the two Galvin's houses is none other than Mark Alford's house, who participated in a May 8 meeting with the Orthodox community over Boston College expansion -- and was a candidate in the A-B City Council election until he pulled out suddenly on July 3 (the last official day to get off of the ballot). For the record, neither Alford's nor Secretary Galvin's houses have sprouted campaign lawn signs; nobody yet knows publicly how they lean.

The Galvin-Alford-Galvin trifecta have long ties to the Brighton neighborhood, lists of campaign supporters from Secretary Galvin's decades of running for elected office, and a behind-the-scenes influence that is hard to match. While Secretary Galvin's list of six Allston-Brighton campaign contributors (search on CFPID 10176, City of Boston, and year 2006; then count 02134 and 02135 addresses) might have been thin during his most recent re-election campaign, those guys no doubt have an extensive database of supporters ready to be mobilized.

If one move has the potential to mix up this race, Patrick Galvin's lawn sign might be it. Two candidates are probably the least pleased with this development: Mark Ciommo and Rosie Hanlon. Why? Those two are long-term residents who have been splitting the "old boy" neighborhood vote of long-term A-B residents. I don't have enough digits -- even after removing my shoes -- to count the number of men who have told me they were going to vote for Ciommo solely based on knowing him since they were kids. Hanlon's connection to the neighborhood is not quite as deep, but no doubt growing -- her five kids (with the web of school and friend connections that brings), and her work with the Brighton business community, reaches all across the established residents of the neighborhood.

Glennon has comparatively far less of that traditional support in the neighborhood -- except for some of the inherited supporters of former state Representative Brian Golden. Patrick Galvin's lawn sign may indicate that some of Ciommo and Hanlon's long-term resident support may now be split with a third candidate, Glennon. A three-way split for the "old boy" vote may actually work to the benefit of Tim Schofield -- or probably more so for Alex Selvig, who could eke out a second-place finish if he can mobilize large portions of the anti-institutional expansion and under-40 crowd.

Finally, I wonder if my "phone survey" last night from the Glennon campaign had anything to do with this lawn sign over in 22/8? Best left as speculation.


Of Whales and Elephants

I previously commented on how there were too many lawn signs up during this campaign season, and that I was praying for rain to disintegrate some of them. The recent rain did just that to at least a few signs. I'm gonna continue my backyard dance to summon a nor'easter and clear these signs away.

Conservative and Orthodox Jewish Communities In Conflict Over Temple Bnai Moshe

Temple Bnai Moshe, at 1854 Commonwealth Avenue in Brighton, has long been a Conservative jewish place of worship, where many of the congregants are immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Lately, though, it has been an unlikely battleground between two different Jewish sects in Brighton -- leading to a recent court case.

Leaders of the Temple voted in December 2006 to provide Sabbath space for Orthodox Jewish minyan Beis Binah. Sounds like a fine gesture, but the result appears to have been a sharp conflict beteween the two Jewish communities.

Accounts vary -- and are a bit murky and confusing for this Gentile -- but seem to indicate that the Orthodox members tried to expand their influence substantially over the temple, both its property and its religious association. Orthodox congregants unsuccessfully put forth proposals at temple board meetings to "transform the congregation into an Orthodox place of worship," according to The Jewish Advocate. Joshua Katzen, a board member supporting at least some of the Orthodox proposals, said they were "simply seeking to use the synagogue’s 'hardly used' small chapel located downstairs from the main sanctuary."

As events unfolded, several Orthodox Jews were named to the Temple's board. And an election for new board members and officers was held on April 29. This election was disputed, which formed the basis for the lawsuit by the Orthodox congregants against the Conservative ones. Alanna Cline, a co-defendant as well as a lawyer for the Conservative Jewish defendants in the lawsuit, said, “What is indisputable is that this guest sued the host to steal the host’s home.”

On July 16, a judge in the Suffolk Superior Court handed down a ruling in favor of the defendants -- the Conservative congregants. They proceeded to give the Orthodox congregants a few days to move out.

The story is well-reported by The Jewish Advocate, Boston's paper of record for the Jewish community. A few letters-to-the-editor indicate how the communities are picking up the pieces -- or not. Alanna Cline, one of the Conservative Jewish defendants, wrote:

Hoping litigation is behind us, we happily return to being a shul with a full temple life. Most certainly, it will be a L’Shana Tova for Temple Bnai Moshe as preparations begin for our upcoming jubilee year... To our recent Hasidic guests, we invited a parting with mutual respect and peace. We now reiterate that with “Shalom.”

Conservative Cantor Theodore Schneider of Temple Bnai Moshe was much more direct in his criticism of the Orthodox group, particularly pointing out some of the religious differences between the denominations which appear to make co-celebration incompatible:

Temple Bnai Moshe has been, and has pursued Conservative Judaism, both since its original worship services in 1933 and then, again, with the dedication of our lovely edifice in 1954. The structure was expressly built to ensure that without exception, parents and children, husbands and wives, and men and women would all sit immediately together in worship, on and off the Bima, to ensure Conservative worship and promote its values.

Last year, we welcomed Beis Binah for up to six months of hospitality... My congregation and I now suffer and defend efforts at a hostile take-over of our Conservative shul by [Rabbi Moshe Lieberman's] Hasidic group...

This is not the manner in which Jews should treat one another... On their part, I ask they keep faithful to the Tenth Commandment.

Another letter, by Orthodox Jew Yosef Glassman, argues that the Orthodox community was actually resuscitating a withering congregation -- and indicates a more complicated history for Temple Bnai Moshe:

...My great-grandfather, William (Ze’ev) Mezikofsky, was one of the original founding members when it was established as an Orthodox synagogue upon its inception, prior to its move to Commonwealth Ave. Additionally, I have watched the Beis Binah minyan breathe new life into Bnai Moshe, which was until recently a shell of a synagogue, providing rented space to various groups to survive... In the Conservative chapel, there is not even a quorum of men and women on most holiday and Shabbat services... What appears to the Bnai Moshe associates as a “hostile takeover” results from a lack of understanding and, frankly, cognitive dissonance regarding the true nature of the shul at this juncture, whose only religious activity is the Beis Binah minyan.

I can only offer, as an outsider, the hope that these two communities can figure out some way to bridge the widening chasm between them.