I attended my town's Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB) meeting tonight to see how things really work. I was the only "spectator." My original intention was not to report on the meeting, but I think it is worthwhile to document the kinds of things in town government that so few people every experience firsthand. Bear with the length of this article!

My first surprise was the attendance. All 12 members showed up at 7:30pm on a weeknight and stayed until nearly 10pm. When I first arrived, I thought it would be a sparsely attended thing—I knew I would be the only "un-official" person, but I also expected only a handful of "regulars" to show up. I underestimated my town.

There were two major issues on the agenda—a report on the progress of Westwood Station and something about "Glacier/Everett Development."

Westwood Station is progressing well, with over 75% of the retail lease space committed. The developer will most likely file the master plan tomorrow. Then there will be a period of public discussion and hearings prior to approval. When the process is complete, the developer hopes to open in about 2 years—so the reality is that we will not see anything until at least 2009. Also, the nature of retail leasing, and the fact that the project is to some extent competing with a nearby project, Legacy Place, in Dedham, means we still have no official information as to who the tenants will be. But the following broad parameters are being reinforced:

The project sounds very similar to Santanna Row in San Jose, CA, but perhaps more upscale. That means the larger stores and restaurants will not be Walmart and Taco Bell/KFC. But I could only speculate at this point. It appears the retail component will be differentiated from the Dedham project along age and income lines: Legacy Place will be anchored by a new theatre complex and supported by restaurants and retail that cater to that crowd. Nearby apartment complexes, somewhat convenient to a commuter rail train station have already been built, but are not integrated into the project.

The most interesting new information about Westwood Station is how the potential traffic issues appear to have been solved. First of all, the developer has, with the town, held a number of public meetings in the nearby neighborhoods, where about 800 households will be affected. These public meetings have drawn over 100 residents per meeting and have resulted in a consensus solution that has the residents strongly supportive of the project. Additionally, the developer has acquired a parcel of land that will allow reconfiguration of the I-95 on/off ramp to greatly improve access from the current situation where cars end up at a stop sign making a left turn towards the future development.

The project is being seen as a model for community/business partnership and for many residents now, something that they feel will allow them to remain in town because of the future tax revenue. The problem in Westwood had been that the proportion of tax revenue collected from residential vs. commercial had increased over the past decade to a great imbalance on homeowners—raising the specter of inevitable property tax increase to maintain basic services. While it will not usher in an era of booming prosperity and limitless budgets, Westwood Station offers the potential to be an insurance policy for decades, making the town affordable, at least for residents who wish to stay here. It may not address rising home prices, but it should provide stability to the tax base and insure against the cycle of a series of contentious Proposition 2 ½ overrides that has plagued many towns, turning each town meeting and election cycle into a referendum on whether or not we care enough about our kids to raise or taxes again and again.

But Westwood Station was merely informational. The real drama of the evening was the issue vaguely described as “Glacier/Everett.”

First of all, I must disclaim that I know nothing about this except for the discussion this evening. However, I think what I learned, just from sitting there and listening, illustrates how much substance, subtlety, and sophistication was contained in this little meeting of a dozen people in a town of some 14,000 or so folks…

5 years ago, the Clair family planned to build a Mercedes dealership on a relative wasteland area in town, located between Route 1, Everett St, and the commuter rail train tracks. At the time, the Economic Development Advisory Board opposed the project out of a concern that a car dealership was a very “low-value” use of the land, that it would effectively “land-lock” other parcels making them undevelopable, and, although no one said this at the meeting…I’m sure it was a concern…that it would turn that part of Westwood into something indistinguishable from the Norwood auto mile. At that time, the Clair family worked to beatify the project, improving the design of the building so that is truly a very elegant car dealership, and making verbal commitments to the town that they would not park cars in Westwood (i.e. no big lot of inventory).

The Mercedes dealership was followed by a Porshe/Audi dealership on the other side of Route 1. If you have to have car dealers…not bad. Better than Ernie Boch’s New To You lot in Norwood.

Adjacent to the Mercedes dealership is an existing truck servicing business. Apparently 50-75 trucks per day visit this facility to refuel, get serviced, etc. But when the lease came up recently, Clair purchased the lease with the intention to move their prepping operations out of the service bays at the Porshe and Mercedes dealerships to these other, nearby lots. However, this use requires approval of the town building inspector. If the building inspector does not believe it is a conforming use, then they will need to go to the Zoning Appeals Board and get a special permit.

An SUV-load of attorneys were present tonight to make a case to the EDAB to support them in their bid to win approval of this use of the land.

First of all the Board Chair made it clear that the board doesn’t have any official power to do anything on this, but would like to support it if it is in the best interests of the town. Now clearly, prepping 911s is preferable to many alternative uses of the land—such as fueling Ryder rental truck—but the focus of the EDAB is long-term…if we support this 2-year lease now…and then Clair buys the property in 2 years and makes this a permanent operation…does it cause a “creepage” of the car dealership and effectively make any alternative development impossible? Also, an underlying and fundamental issue is that although Clair has been a great corporate neighbor over the years, the original, hotly-contested issue 5 years ago was the idea that they would not park cars in Westwood…now, here they are asking for support to do just that.

Clair’s case was helped by their attorney who politely, skillfully, and patiently made the case. But he didn’t have anything to give to make any significant difference in the zoning argument. I believe what the Town Administrator was expecting was more of a presentation of how the land might be developed to be improved…and the Board Chair was looking for a legal argument that he had not heard before that would allow the EDAB to take a supportive position without putting themselves in a position of supporting something that they would later regret or that would be shot down immediately by the building inspector and zoning appeals board. Watching the dialog, I could see the Board just needed something to hang onto, some kind of assurance that would help them make the decision they wanted. But that just wasn’t something the attorney could realistically give for his client. That guy is going to sell cars. Period. That’s his business.

Clair’s case was almost killed by the performance of an attorney representing the lessor. Although he made an intelligent, articulate case, he completely missed the point and misread the Board’s feeling and intentions. He started by saying something to the effect that he didn’t need to be here, but somebody told him it was a good idea to get the EDAB on board so they could put pressure on the building inspector and get the permit. He did not say it that way, but that is what at least half the board members were hearing. Then, he tried to argue that parking cars on the lot was no different that warehousing big screen TVs and that if they wanted to do that, they didn’t need anyone’s approval as long as the TVs were indoors. OK. I understood the logic…and I think everyone else did too…but it was the wrong tactic. It was not helping the Board reach the solution they wanted to reach…Then, he basically said if the Board didn’t help grant the permit, his client would probably lease the land to Ryder so they could store their trucks there. Not helpful.

As the discussion went back and forth, the issues were teased out…the concerns about land-locking the other parcels, the idea of building a new road that would benefit everyone, weighing the short term gain/cost of a sub-optimal use vs. the possibly fanciful idea of a better future use. But then a solution and consensus began to emerge: Support the idea, let the zoning issue be resolved however it was, and maintain a dialog and conversation with Clair over the next two years as a sub project of the board investigated the business realities of potential alternative development. In other words, get a sort of verbal commitment from Clair not to go nuts on the new use of land without consulting the town and give the town time to figure out alternatives. Ideally, if the town found a better land use, Clair might be better off supporting that development and sharing in the profit someday.

The action to be taken, to resolve this issue began to take shape as a letter of recommendation to be written, following an up or down vote by the Board. Briefly, someone suggested more time to study the issue, but people quickly observed that there really was no more time; the 2-year lease started at the end of September and if the EDAB failed to take action tonight, Clair was going to the building inspector tomorrow anyway. Amazingly, everyone realized the wisdom and reality of this and a motion was made and seconded. The measure passed.

The meeting was far from high drama; I think you have to be kind of a poli sci geek to be this interested. But it was amazing to watch the deliberative political process really work and to watch a group that had no official power exercise what influence it did have in a way that preserved its integrity and made an impact. I have seen so many similar discussions fall apart…I have seen so many things postponed to irrelevance. I have seen, in many organizations, the challenge of on the one hand, needing to take action to avoid being irrelevant—but not wanted to act in a way that was just a rubber stamp. These people found an effective action. It doesn’t solve the issue, but collectively, they found what they could do to help things along without sacrificing their principles.

I like this town.