The plan seemed straightforward: then-mayor Martin J. Walsh wanted to rezone an “underused” stretch of land in Jamaica Plain and Roxbury to allow thousands of new homes to be built.
But the backlash was swift and fierce — from affordable-housing activists, neighborhood associations, and yes, NIMBYs. There was a “die-in” at a planning meeting and a sit-in at City Hall. When the city’s powerful development agency approved the plan in March 2017, protesters spilled into the hallways and shouted “shame on you.”
After that initial approval, though, Walsh never brought it to the final step: asking the city’s Zoning Commission to codify the plan as law — a decision several former City Hall staffers said was the direct result of all the blowback.
Today, that blueprint — known as PLAN: JP/Rox — is and will remain little more than informal guidance, leaving builders and neighbors in a 250-acre corner of the city in limbo. And it’s a cautionary tale about the extraordinary backlash Boston mayors face when they attempt to change the shape of neighborhoods, where everyone has an opinion about what belongs.
Now, despite the political risk, Mayor Michelle Wu is forging ahead with a comprehensive overhaul of the Byzantine zoning code that could replicate the contentious JP/Rox process in every neighborhood. Her plan would shift the city from a traditional “use-based” code, concerned with how buildings function — as an office, home, or warehouse — to a new “form-based” code focused more on how big and tall they can be.
Wu and real estate developers agree that zoning reform is long overdue, arguing the current code is outdated and makes it too difficult to build housing the city desperately needs. But many, both in the industry and city politics, also warn that rezoning is a political minefield.
That’s because while nearly everyone agrees the zoning code is needlessly complex, that complexity gives nearly everyone a say in the process. Streamlining it, some long-influential neighborhood and advocacy groups worry, would take away their voice and give City Hall too much power.
And with Wu expected to run for reelection next year, those groups could become powerful political enemies — a modest but uber-engaged subset of the electorate.
“The tides have turned a little bit away from Wu, because she’s not living up to the expectations created in her campaign,” said Alison Frazee, executive director of the Boston Preservation Alliance, who supported Wu in her first election but said she wouldn’t vote for the mayor again if the election were held today. “We give our feedback, and it’s completely ignored.”
Even Wu’s early efforts have prompted sharp critiques. Neighborhood groups, whose members devote hours every week to shaping their communities, decry the rezoning effort as vague and confusing, and fear they will lose their ability to block housing they say is too high or dense.
“We want the city to make decisions with us, not for us,” said Connie Forbes, chair of the Roxbury Neighborhood Council.
That criticism is ringing across the city, with neighborhood groups from Allston to East Boston expressing concern about Wu’s plans. In a recent public letter, four neighborhood association leaders described the latest effort as “bureaucratic centralized authoritarian rulemaking.”
Wu acknowledges that rezoning is a political risk, but said it’s necessary to create new housing and make the city affordable. The first step, her “Squares + Streets” initiative, has city planners drafting rules about what can be built on main drags near transit stations. That effort comes alongside neighborhood planning efforts in Charlestown and other neighborhoods that Wu inherited from Walsh. She intends to push some but not all of them into law.
“There’s near universal agreement that the status quo is broken,” Wu said in a recent interview, adding that she “knew headed into this role that taking action can come at a political cost.”
Most of the 4,000-page zoning code is decades old, obsolete to modern needs. As a result, almost every construction project — from a back deck to a skyscraper — must be approved through a one-off process, a variance from the area’s existing zoning. Modern rules would allow developers to build more “as of right,” clearing a path for new housing by removing potential legal hurdles that have delayed or blocked major projects in the past. Developers are eager for a more predictable system. But some neighborhood associations worry those changes would leave them fewer opportunities to shape their communities.
There is also significant money at stake. Because developers need community buy-in, they routinely budget thousands of dollars in “community benefits” — money for parks, public art, and kids’ sports teams — to curry favor with neighborhood groups.
The Columbia-Savin Hill Civic Association, for example, is accepting a staggering $750,000 donation from developers planning seven buildings on Morrissey Boulevard in Dorchester, though the group insists the gift came “with no strings attached.”
Jesse Kanson-Benanav, executive director of advocacy group Abundant Housing Massachusetts, said that the nebulous community benefit system is “problematic and verges on ethically questionable,” and that Wu’s “Squares + Streets” effort is a “modest but important step” toward smoothing out the system.
“We need to take the unofficial veto power of neighborhood groups out of it,” he said.
Wu got a preview of political resistance in September, when Charlestown residents came out in force against a neighborhood plan started under the Walsh administration that would allow for taller housing in and along Sullivan Square. Dozens packed neighborhood meetings and flooded city officials with emails, but the Boston Planning and Development Agency board approved the plan nonetheless, and the Wu administration has codified it in the zoning code.
As the plan was being finalized, Charlestown leaders noted that Wu won their neighborhood by just a couple hundred votes in 2021, and warned that political fallout could be significant.
Resistance to zoning change has been fierce in other neighborhoods, too. More than 100 East Boston residents — some furious — gathered last fall to question BPDA staff at a public meeting where city officials proposed denser housing in the neighborhood.
“Solving the city’s housing crisis is not East Boston’s responsibility!” blared one flier at the time.
It’s not just neighborhood associations that could lose influence. Advocacy groups of many stripes — from labor unions to environmentalists — lobby for their interests during the variance approval process. Add up all the opposition and it has the potential to be a staggering political liability for the first-term mayor.
Allston Civic Association president Anthony D’Isidoro, who is advising Wu on planning and supports her efforts, warned, “Every community has a constituency that is going to oppose [denser zoning].”
“The administration anticipated this pushback,” he added. “The question is, though: Have they underestimated the pushback?”
Wu said she has consistently solicited community input, but recognized that “change is scary.” Wu is already confronting the political risks, and has done what Walsh never did by pushing neighborhood plans for Allston and Mattapan through the Zoning Commission and into law. The Charlestown plan was approved by the BPDA over objections from elected officials — the sort of people who’ve stalled or sunk such plans in the past.
Wu is tackling other changes to city planning. For decades, the quasi-governmental BPDA has been the bogeyman taking blame for unpopular development decisions. Now, Wu wants to bring its planning functions under control of City Hall, which could earn her credit — or fury.
Wu recognized it’s “very risky” to change a process that is broken but at least familiar. But this is about “bringing more people into setting the new foundation,” she said.
Some in Boston politics praised Wu for taking on a politically divisive issue.
“You sometimes have a small group of people who are self-appointed guardians for a neighborhood, who dictate what can and cannot be built. And that’s inherently unfair and stymies a lot of good development,” said Matt O’Malley, a former city councilor. “A fairer, streamlined, more understandable process benefits everyone.”
“Will there be some political fallout? Of course,” he added. But “it’s a risk well worth taking.”
Emma Platoff can be reached at emma.platoff@globe.com. Follow her @emmaplatoff. Catherine Carlock can be reached at catherine.carlock@globe.com. Follow her @bycathcarlock.