City properties and the LRA
You may have noticed that my knowledge of the Lawrence Redevelopment Authority (LRA) is limited. There are more questions everywhere I look, and I’m sure many in the city feel the same way; it’s not an easy subject to understand unless you are in the “thick of things.”
I have the list of properties that the City is planning to turn over to the LRA, and even with my limited education on the subject, I began to question the purpose because it didn’t make sense.
Let me explain. In a letter from the LRA attorney Brian Corrigan to the Council, he wrote:
“The LRA submitted a request for proposals for the many lots available in the city, and the deadline is September 13, 2024. At that time, they plan to review the proposals received, host developer presentations, and make recommendations before the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). This committee consists of 25 members of the Lawrence community made up by 12 members representing the City’s 6 districts, 2 appointed by each City Councilor from his/her district and 6 citizens appointed by the 3 at-Large City Councilors; 2 appointed by the Mayor; 1 member of the public safety committee appointed by the Police Chief; 1 members appointed by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission; and 3 community members appointed by the LRA and representing the architectural/engineering, business and members and banking fields. The goal is to convene the CAC before the proposal submission deadline to discuss logistics and establish a schedule for the developer presentations as we head into the fall.”
Currently, the LRA is selling properties belonging to the City because Mayor Brian DePeña has not signed off on any of them. Are they getting ahead of themselves, or is that a way to pressure the mayor and the councilors? How can they open the proposals on September 13th “to review the proposals received, host developer presentations, and make recommendations” on properties they don’t own yet?
During that meeting, the developers will get to know the people representing the area where their properties are located, allowing them to establish rapport and stress the benefits for the area if they acquire it. I don’t want to think about other nefarious dealings that we hear of in different places.
The main question is to explain to the taxpayers the criteria for releasing a piece of city-owned property to the Lawrence Redevelopment Authority.
- Under General Laws chapter 121 B Section 5, as well as Section 7. A housing or redevelopment authority shall elect from among its members a chairman and a vice-chairman, and may employ counsel, an executive director who shall be ex officio secretary of the authority;
- Establish rehabilitation and design standards;
- Assemble and dispose of land, including the taking of real estate through eminent domain; Relocate businesses and residents occupying property in urban renewal areas;
- Demolish and / or rehabilitate substandard structures;
- Participate in real estate development and commercial revitalization;
- Issue bonds, borrow money, invest funds, and receive grants; and
- Accept gifts or requests.
That information is available on the City of Lawrence’s website.
On April 4, 2024, The Eagle-Tribune published an article entitled Council readies for legal action over transfer of Lawrence owned properties by Jill Harnacinski stating:
“At the heart of the issue is a 2016 urban renewal plan developed by the LRA. Under that plan, DePena and LRA members believe they can transfer the 11 properties to the LRA without current approval by the City Council.
“City attorney Timothy Houten, however, in a decision issued March 28, said all land transfers must be signed by the mayor after receiving approval from the City Council.”
The public believes there’s a war between the mayor and the council president (Jeovanny Rodriguez), but it is all there in the city council meetings. Once we learn to listen to both sides, we conclude that something is not being done right.
For example, the council president wants to know why the properties must be surrendered to the LRA when we could sell them and keep the profits it could bring to the city. Once the LRA sells them, they keep that profit for future investments, not the city.
Mayor DePeña explained that the parking lots (another example) will be sold to build garages with business spaces on the first floor, leaving the city with that revenue. That’s unclear, which is why the councilors object to approval.
Also, Buckley Garage was included on the original list, but something happened and was removed. They came to their senses because that garage earns Lawrence $600,000 yearly.
There are too many inconsistencies to agree to give up on our properties.
Poor elections return
As it was predicted, very few people went to vote last Tuesday. Yes, that angers me because if people knew the value of their vote, they would never miss that opportunity.
Most people go to the polls motivated by a candidate, not the issues. Sometimes, the reason is to vote against the other candidate in complete ignorance of what benefits or damages society.
We see it at all levels of our communities, whether they are well-educated or not. People who refuse to talk to others with opposing views because their minds are made up or listen to radio or television stations that may expose them to other candidates. What a sad state of affairs we have!
Be the first to comment