Eric fights for residents of A-B. Read a letter with data sent to City Councilors to protect the neighborhood.

Sent to: Liz Breadon, Juan Lopez, and Michelle Wu

April 5th, 2021

Dear City Representative and Residents of Allston Brighton: 

In this letter and documentation, I would like to discuss some concerns that I and many  other residents of Allston-Brighton have regarding the thought of creating a new  proposed “Master Plan” for our neighborhood. Some of the information that has been  presented by the individuals spearheading this project is erroneous and with all due  respect I consider it short sighted. Additionally, I would like to high light some concerns  that already have and will continue to affect all the residents of Allston-Brighton some of  which are clear health and safety issues. 


A notice dated January 27th, 2021 to the people of Boston calls for a hearing on Allston Brighton Master Plan and Zoning Initiative brought forth by Councilor Liz Breadon with  the support of Arroyo, Bok, Edwards, Essaibi-George, Flaherty, Flynn,Mejia, O’Malley,  Campbell, Wu and Janey. This notice has some important errors and gross  misrepresentations. Please see Notice here:

1. In two places this Notice tells us that over 7000 apartments have been approved for  construction. This number is factually wrong and is actually an astronomical 10,000+ of  project 80 plans and an additional un-totaled 1000+ units from 300-500 houses (estimate) that have added 1-4+ apartment units to their property via the variance appeals process  (this number is very hard to track, but I do have some information compiled to support  it).  

This is extremely concerning that these government officials are downplaying 11.000+ apartments that are already built or in the process of being build. Not to mention the wild  guestimate of 5000-10,000 units that Harvard may put on their 100 acres of land they  have to play with. Once said and done just this current 11,000+, this will increase the  population of Allston-Brighton by an estimate of 35-45% or 27,500 to 39,000+ people  (and growing). If Mayor Walsh wanted 52,000 new apartments, well Allston-Brighton  has already contributed more than 20+% of that number!!! (see included spreadsheet)

2. “only 20% of these units are homeownership units” – is massively false and is actually  less than 5 if not 3%. (see included spreadsheet). Also a major consideration should be  that by building so much nearly exclusively rental units, the city has destroyed the  incredibly small number of owner occupants from previously 15% in Brighton, down to  less than 10% (I wager) and Allston from about 10% to less than 5% (I wager). In my  neighborhood I am one of the only 1-2% of owner occupied homes the lowest in any area  of Boston.  

3. “roughly 3% of the units are 3-bedrooms” – I find this number questionable, since I  personally know that this data is VERY VERY hard to compile because the construction  projects often do NOT list the number of bedrooms, so in some cases you would have to  look at the actual plans submitted at 1010 Mass Ave. and count each room. Please look  at and see how easy it is to  determine the number of bedrooms per unit on a multitude of these projects. I try to  include this information on my spreadsheet when readily available, but I found it next to  impossible to extract in many cases. 

Now for those of us who have been following this rampant growth remember that it  started with the pleas of “need for individual housing and micro apartments as there was  too much larger units taken up by college students living 3-5+ persons per apartment.  Now this record has been flipped over and the demand for larger units to accommodate  families is the plea. Shouldn’t this be a consideration planned out appropriately during  the development process by urban planning department starting 2015 rather than dictated  by developers’ market analysis desires? 

4. “Increased development in Allston-Brighton has not been accompanied by sufficient  investment in and improvement of transportation networks and public transit options” – this is the fault of the city councilor and urban planning, not the residents. The City gifted billions of dollars worth of housing development without requiring improvements  to transit, not to mention police, fire, roads, electric, water, sewer, and many other safety  issues. This should be extremely concerning to all residents because the effects of these  short comings are starting to happen and will grow as more projects near completion, and  we see a 35%-45% population increase.  

5. “The City of Boston has never conducted a comprehensive, community-led master  planning process for Allston-Brighton” – I feel this is false, Article 51 was a community  led master planned that was developed over many years by the community and signed off  by Mayor Manino, and has been updated throughout the years. SECTION 51-6 clearly  states “Community Participation” and lists the groups that participated in the drafting. It 

is a living document and an agreement to protect the residence from overdevelopment as  clearly stated throughout. There are a number of people who were involved in the  creation of these Articles for the various neighborhoods throughout the city including the  Chair Person of the ZBA – Christine Araujo. Zoning Article 51: 

One could say that the Boston 2030 was a Master Plan foisted on the residents without  much consent. That plan was implemented within the last 7-8 years and put Boston into  full unbridled construction overdrive lacking important consideration for urban planning. 

6. “In the past two years, rents for housing units in Allston-Brighton have risen by an average of 32%” – I find this hard to believe when there was 2000+ available apartments  in Allston-Brighton on September 1st, 2020 and about 600 on September 1st, 2019.  Additionally, list Suffolk county as having the 4th highest rent reduction in  the WHOLE nation (Feb. 2021). Also, next door Middlesex County was #7.

As well as United Van Lines reporting Massachusetts being in the top ten for people  moving out of state. moving-out-of-state/  

I wanted to briefly address and contradict some of these listed reasons calling for a  Master Plan for Allston-Brighton, my purpose was not to go point by point and tear this  hearing notice apart, but I did want to highlight these glaring and rather important errors  before discussing some rather larger issues.  


If the Mayor’s desire was to create 53,000 new housing units (or even some larger  number), clearly Allston-Brighton has already provided way more than its share in that  number with 11,000+ units, not including the massive tidal wave of housing that Harvard  will be able to reign down upon us with the 100+ acres of available space.

We live in a state that only grows one-half percent (.5%) annually in terms of population  growth, and that is prior to Covid-19. The mayor’s desire to grow to 53,000 units, is an  approximate growth of let’s say 25% population over a 8-10 year time period. Even over  10 years, 2.5% is 5 times higher than the state average (DURING 10 CONSECTIVE  YEARS). Maybe 2.5% growth could happen once or twice, but not 10 consecutive years.  

As one of 25 recognized zoning areas, Allston-Brighton is already carrying 20+% of that  53,000 units, which makes our population numbers even higher than the City’s sum total  of 25% population growth, which supports my conservative estimate of 35%-45%  population growth rate.  

Lastly, please consider surrounding towns (Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, Malden, etc)  are also massively building additional housing. I have no solid data on this, but these  cities must also be creating large numbers of housing units. A reasonable person must  ask themselves, “can all of metro Boston grow 2-5 times more than the state average annual growth rate of .5% for a multitude of year?” 

Now I was drastically worried about these number prior Covid-19, and now that we are  approaching the end of this pandemic, things have changed massively and could be much  worse. Clearly people are moving out of what was once thought as “undiminishable major metropolitan cities” such as NYC, San Franscisco, Los Angeles, Portland Oregon  and Seattle which have all been hit hard in population reduction. As stated earlier, United Van Lines has Massachusetts in the top ten states for exodus. 


Here are the reasons Boston zoning code will grant variances with ALL of the following  conditions needing to be met:  

1) special circumstance or conditions (such as odd shape land) which deny reasonable use 2) demonstrable and substantial hardship (such as financial) 

3) granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this  code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public  welfare 

4) (If large project) – complied with the Development Impact Project Exaction 80B 

I feel that there are no project 80 developments in Allston-Brighton that met these  requirements to be granted the needed variances for construction and most other projects  that were granted variances were also unmeritorious.  

Article 51 which is specific to Allston-Brighton, was written to protect the residents and  minimize the over development of the neighborhoods of Allston-Brighton. Not only does  this intend to protect from drastic community changes, it also protects individuals’ home  values, safety and well-being. This is an agreement between the city and its residents to  protect its residents, not to provide select financial benefit to developers or growth for  purposes of providing housing and/or an increase in tax revenue. It is also not meant to  change from Mayor to Mayor, if that were the case, then comparatively a new mayor  could protect Allston-Brighton but bull doze the Common and take a wrecking ball to all  the Brownstones in the back bay with enough scheduled hearings and meetings to make  people eventually give up fighting. 


By granting developers large variances, it is important to understand that the developers: 1) often make money while building the project, 2) they clearly make money owning the  project and 3) the get to eat their cake every month by renting out their project, this is why I say its better than having cake and eating too. The city could have required these  buildings to be condos which would have benefited the community more – I will discuss  this further. Often you will hear that condos could not have been built for tax reasons or  some other false hurdle, but there are always work arounds for everything.  

I think it is important to highlight how much value the city has gifted developers in  Allston-Brighton. One of the first projects that was started and subsequently sold was  The Green District project which cost about $75 million to build and sold for roughly  $150 million. The city gifted variances to this developer, against the guidelines of article  51, which allowed the developer to profit $75 million on that construction and sale. That project was only 263 apartments over 3 buildings. 

So if we value each apartment at about $500,000+/- multiplied by 11,000+ we are at  nearly $6 billion dollars of gross asset value that the city gifted developers of which very  little value or even community contribution was given back to the residents of Allston Brighton. In fact, with 11,000 apartments built, the residents home values most likely will  go down, especially considering 90% of housing is rental which largely dictates the value  of the property in our area. So how did the residents of Allston-Brighton benefit from  these developments?


Now it obviously sounds like I am against development, which is not true. I  acknowledge that some housing did need to be built and there was much needed improvements. The Guest Street development zone, I think is excellent and should be a  very worth while area for the whole community providing housing and attracting  outsiders to visit that area for a multitude of reasons. 

What I have been pushing for since 2017 when we first started to form a home owners  union was “100% ownership” for new construction. At that point there was only 4000 or  less apartments approved which were 95% rentals. Tony D’Isidoro from the Allston  Community Association and Liz Breadon our now city councilor were in those meetings. 

My view was (and is) if we are going to give away variances to developers, we should  require 100% ownership which would help hold more permanent residents in Allston Brighton. With that 100% ownership you could make 13% (or more) affordable  ownership whereby low-income people own a property, gain economic independence  from the government AND own property as part of their retirement portfolio something  that may not have been available to them previously. Additionally, by building condos  the affect on the rental market and thus the decrease of home values would be much less.  

As Harvard is growing, North Allston is building apartment rather than condos. So all  those new employees who are over 35 years old, might be starting a family, making  $60k-$150k will be required to live in a different area to own a home as part of the  normal American “home ownership as long term investment/retirement” plan. So these  employees at Harvard, lets say, only give their lunch money to the North Allston  community because they cannot buy a house/condo in Allston-Brighton since none are  being built. So they leave the city at the end of every day and weekends to go to another  community to spend their money and buy a home making a more permanent resident  contribution to another area. This to me is very sad, our city leaders allow developers to  build rentals to make more money for themselves rather than building a better and  permanent community in Allston-Brighton. Had my views on building 100% Ownership  been enforced by the community and the community leaders, we would be looking at  7000+ new condos in Allston-Brighton with more permanent residents who inherently  care greater about the neighborhood and offer low income people financial independence from government subsistence.


The Guest Street project was properly handled in 2012 by Mayor Manino’s  administration in that it was zoned and approved by the community. In consideration for  allowing buildings that were much larger than allowed for that zoned area, the city would  limit development in the surrounding areas (see page 45 of the Guest Street proposal).  This agreement was subsequently not kept and many of the new buildings built or being  built nearby violate this Guest Street promise. So not only is Article 51 being violated by  these buildings also the Guest Street agreement. Based on this, I cannot offer any  confidence that a New Master Program would be handled in an honorable manner for the  residence of Allston-Brighton. 


I think is important to understand that it is now getting harder and harder to build  affordable housing. Costs have gone up massively in the last 6 months and there is little  indication this will slow down anytime soon. Part of this is due to the fact that we are at  the end of our current fiat currency cycle and inflation has sucked the valued away. We  could have massive inflation, deflation or stag-flation. Additionally, it is not necessarily  that rent has gone up massively, as that also incomes has not gone up in most  employment sectors for 20 years. Apartments that are being built now in Allston need to  rent for $1300-$1600 per bedroom and studios/single bedrooms are over $2500+ per  month. Do we really believe that Allston-Brighton is going to be able to attract an  additional 30,000 + under 35 year-old renters each September 1st who can afford that  much? 


I feel pretty confident that some of the buildings being currently built will go back to the  banks or foreclosed on because their necessary high rental rates and because of the over  construction much like in the late 1980s and 2008. On Youtube you can watch the senate  hearings from early 1990s explaining the Savings and Loan crisis which is very similar to  present day. In other parts of the country in 2008 there was massive over development. 

Next, as I have suggested with 11,000 apartments being built in Allston-Brighton, the  infrastructure and safety issues have been overlooked. This could be an issue that could  come back to bite the people who are not addressing the issues properly. Many of us  have been waving the red flag for a while.  

So instead of a master plan for further development, it might make sense to plan for  converting some buildings to ownership and backfill the neglected safety issues (police,  fire, electric, water/sewer, roads, misc. infrastructure) that were not properly addressed over the last 7 years.  


I have provided a great deal of information (and opinion) in this document to better  inform my fellow residents and city officials; I did my best to be brief but still  substantive. 

I have shown that the information our City Councilor and fellow representatives portrayed in the Hearing Notice had a great deal of false and/or misleading information and I did so with supporting documentation. So, I have to question their efforts as being  disingenuous with regards to properly representing the current residents of Allston Brighton.  

As I have suggested, the city officials have stepped over the stated goals of Article 51  which is to protect this neighborhood, and they handed out massive number of variances without merit. Additionally, these same people did not uphold the Guest Street agreement  which was a promise to the residents of Allston-Brighton that there would be  construction minimization in specified areas. In consideration of the massive amount of over development and broken promises why would we, the residents of Allston-Brighton want to open the flood gates and allow these officials to create a New Master Plan  thereby further changing our neighborhood, decrease the value of our homes, add further  risk to our safety, greater decrease the number of owner occupants, and many other non beneficial considerations? 

Just because they repeat the statement “we need more housing” over and over in a  Bernaysian fashion, does not make it true. I have yet to see data that show some massive  number of housing units needed in spite of people parroting this mantra over and over. Of  course, there is never enough affordable housing, there never will be. I have to ask why  do these people fight so hard to build in this neighborhood and is this really 

“representative government”? It is my opinion that their efforts would be better served to  now represent the people currently living in Allston-Brighton and prepare for the  safety/infrastructure issues that will arise once the population has been increased close to  50%. To also fight for converting current construction to home ownership/affordable  ownership. Clearly some of these new buildings could be converted to affordable owner  occupancy not to mention that as condos they are lower cost, nearby, affordable starter  housing for young families – a win win for everyone. 

Finally, I fear that the people pushing for this master plan will read what I have written here and trivialize or microfocus on one small detail to convince themselves and others that my WHOLE presentation here is completely wrong or absurd. Additionally, these  detractors will feign being offended by what I have written or will slur me as a just  

another NIMBY (not in my back yard) type of person; as has been done to so many  others. So call me a NIMBY or pick this document apart based on some micro details that you find offensive, that is fine. But I am merely asking the reader to really take a step back and look at the damage that has been done to Allston-Brighton (albeit not obvious just yet), consider the disregard for safety issues, consider that affordable rental  housing cannot be built affordably right now due to economic reasons, consider instead  of rentals we could have had condos with more permanent residents, consider the impending repercussions of post Covid-19, consider we already have excessive housing  availability in Allston-Brighton with thousands still being built and yet this is still not  enough for these representatives. 

I am a 23 year resident of Allston, I proudly own two houses in my neighborhood, and I do not support and clearly find it unconscionable to ask for New Master Plan for Allston Brighton after the details I have presented here. 

Eric Porter

Allston Christmas

Welcome to September 1st! This day is colloquially known as Allston Christmas. But move-in day is anything but a holiday for new neighbors and existing residents alike. After frantic apartment searches and weeks of moving truck “storrowing,” the big day is finally here. A few free curbside finds notwithstanding, September 1st marks the high turnover of countless apartment leases, as many of the Boston area’s estimated 250,000 college students return for the new school year. 

Allston Christmas is now more about trash management than finding good things along the street – those good ol’ days are long gone! During the Menino administration, the city started to institute stronger penalties and fines for giant piles of Grandma’s furniture and endless cheap floor lamps, stereos, box fans, micro fridges, etc., all of which you do not see today. In the late 1990s the city took it on the chin financially and had giant construction front loader trucks driving around and filling waves of dump trucks in Allston-Brighton, cleaning up the mess on August 31st, September 1st and even on the 2nd.  Realizing that this was a drain on the city years ago, city hall stiffened the fines and held the landlords more accountable. The results were that larger landlords started to get 40-foot dumpsters for their tenants to fill as they were moving out. 

Here is a good example of a responsible landlord at 48 Brighton Ave in Allston. Each year for the past 10+ years for Allston Christmas, they have rented two dumpsters along with street permits for them. However, these dumpster are often emptied at least one time, as they were a day ago.  So in this picture, this merely 35-unit building will have filled four 40-foot dumpsters of trash, and maybe up to six dumpsters once new tenants move in.

Allston Christmas responsible landlords Boston

In this other photo, Hamilton Properties (landlord) has five 40′ dumpsters (one not pictured) plus four normal trash dumpsters available for Allston Christmas to their tenants at 90 Gardner Street and the adjacent buildings on each side. Hamilton Properties seems to be able to portion out the space for 10+ dumpsters.

Allston Christmas on move-in day in Boston

As a candidate for Boston City Council district 9 Allston-Brighton, I am very concerned about what some of the new buildings will do for trash removal on September 1st each year. WiIl 89 Brighton Ave with 129 units have 7+ 40-foot trash dumpsters available for their tenants? Where would they even put these dumpsters? Will Hamilton Properties put out 20+ 40-foot trash dumpsters for their 335 unit buildings in Packard’s Corner? I have a spreadsheet listing 15 new buildings in Allston alone with 100-1000+ units being built,  and I would wager heavily that these landlords have no feasible plan for trash removal on September 1st each year. It will be even more of a mess than it is now.

If these were owner occupied condo buildings, there would never be a problem. Learn about the Allston-Brighton construction projects housing development case study here.

Happy moving day neighbors!