WESTFIELD – The City Council voted 10-3 last night to yield control of six parcels of land, which will eventually become an Elm Street development project, to the Westfield Redevelopment Authority following a highly-charged, and sometimes emotional, discussion.
The idea of transferring control of the city-owned land, along Elm, Arnold and Church streets, to the Westfield Redevelopment Authority (WRA) has divided the City Council at two meetings this month. The transfer required nine affirmative votes of the council members to gain approval, but failed to gain that supermajority to pass at the Sept. 4 Council session.
The Sept. 4 vote failed even though it gained eight affirmative votes, one short of the supermajority. The 8-4 vote occurred when Council President Brent B. Bean was out of town for that meeting.
The City Council approved the first reading of a request to transfer city-owned property to WRA at its July 7 meeting at which a number of concerns about the WRA’s ability to successfully attract private investment in the project were raised.
Typically the second reading and final passage of the order transferring the land would have occurred at the Aug. 21 council session, but was tabled to the Sept. 4 meeting on the motion of At-large Councilor David A. Flaherty, who requested City Advancement Officer and WRA Executive Director, Joseph Mitchell, to provide the councilors with revised maps and legal documents pertaining to easements.
The issue was debated by council members again at the Sept. 4 meeting when Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell, who noted against the transfer again last night, argued that the council “should not abdicate our responsibility, to turn over authority and control to the WRA.”
Flaherty, who voted in support of the land transfer at both meetings, said he shared concerns similar to those of O’Connell.
“We used to have City Council representation on the WRA, but not anymore,” Flaherty said. “We should have someone on that board. We should have more control.”
Last night Flaherty, who made the motion for reconsideration after the order failed to pass as the Sept. 4 meeting, expressed those same reservations, while O’Connell said she objected to the transfer of authority over city-owned property to the non-elected quasi-governmental agency whose members are appointed by the mayor and governor.
“The WRA is not an elected board,” O’Connell said. “I don’t see why the city cannot maintain control over this board. Where is that in state law or city ordinance? I’m having a hard time that this council can’t maintain control over those six parcels.”
Mitchell said that under state law there are only two municipal agencies which can execute urban renewal plans: development authorities and housing authorities.
“I’m hoping that this passes tonight because under the council rules, if it is defeated, I cannot come back for a year, which could set this back years,” Mitchell said. “The Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) today kicked off the intermodal facility.”
“The PVTA has contracted with engineering and design firms and has selected a contractor,” Mitchell said. “The PVTA is waiting for this vote to begin negotiating with the Flahive family. Other property owners are waiting for use to purchase their properties.”
Ward 6 Councilor Christopher Crean said the Elm Street property has been “blighted” since the 1986 fire that gutted Newberry’s department store.
“This piece of land has been blighted for 28 years,” Crean said. “The biggest complaint from our constituents is the condition of the downtown.
“This has to happen. To wait another year is a stake in the heart of the downtown,” Crean said.
Ward 3 Councilor Brian Hoose, in whose ward the project is located, said that city residents are frustrated with governmental bureaucracy slowing and delaying projects for years, even decades.
“Our constituents are fed up with that nonsense,” Hoose said. “The WRA is going to advance the downtown project, enhance the look of downtown. Every city in the region is in competition for these businesses.
“We can become a backwater town or we can make a decision,” Hoose said. “The taxpayers of this city want relief and the best way to give them that is to bring in new business. To delay this is wasteful to the taxpayers and voters of this city.”
Flaherty said he planned to support the order, but added he does not like yielding authority to the WRA.
“We’re talking about only a few acres of land that is already owned by the city,” Flaherty said. “We’re not taking anything anybody wants. This is only phase one. We’re not approving a parking garage. We’re not approving taking private land.”
Councilors James R. Adams, Dan Allie, Brent B/ Bean II, Crean, Ralph Figy, Flaherty, Hoose, Robert A. Paul, Sr., Brian P. Sullivan and Matthew Van Heynigen all voted to approve. Councilors O’Connell, Cindy Harris and Christopher Keefe voted in opposition.
