A willing party to the hedge fund beneath the gown
WPI’s “fall from grace” is not an honest narrative
Hello! Happy September.
Thursday’s post went long so this one I’ve kept comparatively short—Just one main piece today on the WPI controversy. I was going to write about a recent Shotspotter report, but I’ll save that for the next one.
I like the Thursday / Sunday schedule so far! It makes me feel okay about a short and sweet post now and again. But if I ever cross the line into “throwaway posts for posting’s sake” territory I wanna hear it from you! I try very hard to make each one special.
Please subscribe if you can!
And if you can’t you can still spread the good word.
The hedge fund beneath the gown—vehicular manslaughter for a social murder—odds and ends
A willing party to the hedge fund beneath the gown
I’m going to say this as bluntly as I can: The way everyone is talking about WPI’s hotel acquisitions is flat out stupid.
Yes, universities should pay more in taxes. Yes, hotels are good to have. Yes, colleges are hedge funds with course work. All those things are true. But we are allowing the local power elite to dictate the terms of a narrative framework with this hotels-to-dorms story that obscures the wider issue. Conveniently, it also obscures the role of said power elite in creating and worsening it. Just because the Economic Development Coordinating Council is mad they’re losing their piece of the action in a development deal, it doesn’t mean we have to be.
So that’s the idea today: understanding this stuff just enough that you can see the contours of a breathless and shallow story. And, behind it, the much more interesting one.
So first let’s catch up on the shallow story.
July 30 — WPI’s plans become somewhat public by way of a Mass Development public hearing notice. The university is looking for a $26 million loan to buy the Hampton Inn and the Courtyard Marriott in the Gateway Park area off Grove Street. The hearing is ostensibly held on Aug. 5, though I can’t find a record of it on the Mass Development website. The loan will be decided at the Sept. 12 Mass Development Board of Directors meeting.
???? - Mayor Joe Petty and City Manager Eric Batista have a private meeting with WPI in which the president lets them know they’re buying the hotels. Petty let that slip at the council meeting this Tuesday.
Aug. 16 — The Economic Development Coordinating Council puts out their letter blasting WPI. It spurs a few weeks of headline news. There is no story written prior to the EDCC letter.
Aug. 19 — The EDCC letter hits the papers looking like local journalism. Every outlet runs with the Hotel Protagonist versus University Villain narrative, because they only have the one press release to quote. The supposedly independent Worcester Guardian especially is used as Chamber of Commerce President Tim Murray’s mouthpiece to the surprise of no one.
Aug. 20 — Discover Central Massachusetts writes a letter complaining about the impact to the city’s tourism industry. John Brissette of the Worcester Civic Center Commission puts out a similar one, focusing on how certain events at the DCU need a large number of hotel rooms.
Aug. 20 — Follow-up story from the Telegram about how WPI has “remained silent” against “mounting criticism.”
Aug. 22 — The city council releases its own letter, written by Candy Mero-Carlson. It is very “how dare you” in tone. “This proposal is a failure on WPI (sic) to collaborate with the city of Worcester and the local business community.”
Aug. 26 — WPI releases a statement to the university community defending the purchase as necessary for its student body in the current housing crisis.
“Many of you live in the city and therefore know that the Worcester housing market is extremely tight, with ever-increasing apartment rents and a vacancy rate of 1.7%, one of the lowest in the country. This situation puts considerable strain on our students’ ability to find affordable housing and adds pressure to the city’s housing crunch.”
It is the first time any of the parties involved have talked about the housing crisis, despite the fact it’s fundamentally a housing story. WPI also details a timeline for the hotel closures: The Hampton Inn in 2026, the Marriott in 2030. Both will remain operational and on the tax rolls until they’re converted.
Aug. 27 — The city council meets and complains loudly. The city manager says he’s “in talks” with the WPI administration. There’s a vague demand from councilors for “a solution” but no one articulates what that means. Several councilors demand legal action. Councilor Bergman says we should buy the hotels’ parking lots via eminent domain to make WPI back out of the deal. Crazy.
Aug. 29 — The Worcester Historical Commission responds to two letters they received (didn’t say from who) requesting they weigh in on whether there are any historical concerns here with two hotels that were built in 2013. They take a formal vote to not comment. Smart move. Whoever thought historical preservation would be in play here was either dumb or grasping at straws.
And that brings us up to today. WPI is going to buy and convert the hotels. The city is looking for a “solution” that no one has articulated. They might take legal action and, if Bergman has his way, weaponize eminent domain against the university.
There’s no “solution.” Legal action of the kind suggested at council is lighting public money on fire. Not saying they won’t, but they shouldn’t. They probably will though.
But more importantly, there doesn’t have to be a “solution” here. This one acquisition is not the problem the power elite are making it out to be. I’ve already made that argument (“The EDCC goes to war with WPI”) so I won’t spend much time on it.
The important thing is that the EDCC was willing to make the housing crisis worse in order to save their little hotels for their little “tourism industry.” They suggested the university gobble up former Becker dormitories instead. Those properties are already in a residential neighborhood and are ready-to-go housing stock we desperately need. Given the uniquely house-like nature of Becker’s former property holdings, the closing of that campus was a good thing for the city’s housing stock.
At the council meeting Tuesday it became evident that the city’s at an important crossroads with how it handles this: Do we stay myopically focused on punishing WPI for interfering with the growth machine, as the Economic Development Coordinating Council would have us do? Or do we center our neighborhoods, and use this moment as a vehicle to reassess the overall issue of universities-as-developers and housing stock?
It appears there’s a classic crank-progressive split here. The cranks want to go nuclear on WPI, the progressives want to instead focus on overall higher ed encroachment.
On the crank front, Joe Petty, Candy Mero-Carlson, and Moe Bergman all made overtures to future legal action against WPI. Bergman was the most blunt about it.
“Whatever’s legally possible we should be looking at doing,” said Bergman, “if for no other reason than just to send the message out that we’re not going to continue to be taken advantage of without at least trying to fight back.”
To see WPI as “taking advantage” of the city is a very piss-baby, ahistorical take. But it is the prevailing opinion in this city at the current moment. The cranks have been allowed to stake and center that claim. In their version of events, WPI is the once-solid community partner who has, with this move, fallen from grace. This was captured well by Kate Toomey, who said on Tuesday she spoke “in frustration and in hurt and anger.”
“This is not the WPI I sat in the meetings with when we were first doing this project,” she said. “This is not the same focus on community and good town-gown relationships.”
These are people who would rather see the university take away general housing stock than interfere with a downtown “economic engine” that requires hotels.
At a time when we have record low rental vacancy levels, producing unaffordable rents and rising homelessness at an exponential clip, considering hotels more important than housing is sheer negligence.
But there’s a different vision.
Etel Haxhiaj and Khrystian King, as well as several members of the public, articulated it: approaching the issue holistically, by way of the city’s PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreements and university encroachment on neighborhoods.
Haxhiaj asked for a report on all the property taken by universities and the attendant loss of tax revenue. She stressed the main issue here is the impact of land acquisitions on city neighborhoods.
King put the screws to the EDCC, leading to an interesting exchange. He called it the “Worcester economic something council,” saying he’s not sure what it is. He pointed to the ‘why not buy Becker dorms?’ part of the letter.
“Is that in play here? Is that our property? What are they referencing? And are they speaking on behalf of the city? I’m confused,” King said.
Whether his ignorance of the EDCC was feigned or not, he used the moment to make the city manager explain it on the council floor, which is rare. “Is this a city entity?” King asked.
Eric Batista said: “That council is not a city entity, it is simply a coordination of stakeholders in the city that have a specific interest in terms of commercial development here in the community.”
You gotta love the government-speak. It’s not a “city entity,” just a “coordination of stakeholders” with a “specific interest” in the city. Definitely not a “city entity” though, that’s different. Batista continues:
“They play a role not only in business recruitment in the city, but also trying to get developers in the city, but also help support some of these developers with some consultation etc. So it’s just another body, a coalition of individuals that provide consultation and provide information to the administration.”
...right. Sure. Just some light consultations. Notice, also, that he uses “they” when he himself is a member.
The EDCC is a more powerful body than the city council and the city manager is more beholden to it. This is an important thing to understand to truly “get” Worcester. Don’t have the space to relitigate it here, but I laid out the case last Sunday in “A Brief History of the EDCC.”
King said he’d like to see universities stop encroaching on city neighborhoods but rather build up within their campuses. He also said the city should pursue a more aggressive PILOT policy and has plans to introduce something to that effect in the future. He’s apparently part of a statewide coalition on PILOT. Excited to see what he introduces.
During public comment, school committee member Sue Mailman similarly pointed to PILOT, saying there are recommendations in the mayor’s own tax policy guidelines which the city hasn’t implemented. (I need to look into this, but not today—truth be told I’ve never spent a moment familiarizing myself with the mayor’s “tax policy committee,” understanding it to be a combination of ‘definitely boring’ and ‘probably toothless bullshit.’ But maybe I’m wrong.)
Matthew Noe drew a parallel between the way we talk about non-profits costing the city money and the generous tax breaks freely given out to for-profit developers. On any given agenda, he said, there’s usually some sort of 20- to 30-year tax break for some developer up for approval.
“We shouldn’t be targeting educational non-profits while handing away money to for-profit companies,” he said.
It’s worth noting that, of any school, WPI has the most generous PILOT agreement with the city. It runs for the longest (from 2009 to 2034) and pays the most, at $796,000 annual.
Compared to Holy Cross’s $120,000, it’s downright philanthropic. And WPI sits on an endowment half the size of Holy Cross’s, at $589 million versus $1.27 billion. PILOT payments are voluntary, and the city risks losing WPI’s by antagonizing the university as the cranks would have it.
Here’s a brief review of other recent land grabs by higher ed institutions that didn’t set off weeks-long news cycles and threats of legal action on the council floor:
—Earlier this year, MCPH bought three properties on Lincoln Street, including several apartment buildings (25 units total) for $11.68 million. No letter from the EDCC then.
—In 2022, Holy Cross bought a three decker and a single-family home on College Street for $1.27 million. No EDCC letter.
—In 2021, Clark University bought a big vacant lot on Park Ave. It’s still vacant and there’s no development plans I can find. No EDCC letter.
—Since 2020, Clark University has gobbled up several Hawthorn Street residential properties from private owners with plans to demolish them for student housing. No EDCC letter.
—In 2019, MCPH bought a Main Street building with 55 housing units for $6.9 million. No EDCC letter.
You get the idea. If I had more time and space I’d start poking around on the Worcester County Registry of Deeds site but we’ll have to save that for another day. Besides, that’s exactly what Haxhiaj asked city hall staffers to do on Tuesday. That report will be an interesting read.
The point is: The claim that the city is primarily concerned with tax revenue is spurious. When housing stock is taken offline, it’s crickets. When it’s hotel rooms? Five alarm fire. It’s the “tourism industry” concern. Because the “tourism industry” is what ostensibly justifies the massive downtown urban renewal projects that members of the EDCC have over the decades used to claim political victories.
The EDCC and the majority of the council and Discover Central Mass and all the rest who’ve written these letters of late are all party to a growth machine that the EDCC directs with no public accountability. The Gateway Park Project was the EDCC entering willingly into a partnership with WPI as a property developer, and the hotels were the EDCC’s piece of the action, so to speak. That’s why they’re mad.
They are not, on the other hand, seriously interested in examining the ill effects of college-as-developer practices on the community. They are, for the most part, a willing party to the hedge fund beneath the gown. And this story, really, is the story of them getting burned for that willingness. Reaping what they’ve sown.
The issue we need to be concerned with is a much larger one, and it’s not in any way unique to Worcester. (The only thing that is unique is the rate of naked-boy-plus-animal statues per capita.)
I spent a few hours yesterday morning reading In The Shadow of The Ivory Tower: How Universities Are Plundering Our Cities, a 2021 book by Davarian L. Baldwin. After a few weeks of wrangling with the WPI hotel narrative, it was refreshingly not stupid. (A little easter egg for regular readers: it was Tashia of the Freedom On The Move project I featured who recommended the book to me. Thank you, Tashia!)
The college-as-developer issue is deeply entangled in the long drama of urban renewal, just like the very existence of the EDCC. Really, WPI and the EDCC are on the same team, momentarily beefing. Baldwin writes:
By the 1970s, many urban schools had become islands of wealth amid a sea of poverty. But in the 2000s, this uneven geography rapidly gave way to an extension of the campus as a planning model for larger swaths of the city. The result? Poorer neighbors are pushed farther to the periphery of “meds and eds” prosperity. Large-scale university acquisitions of now prime real estate—in cities such as Philadelphia, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles—lead to housing and land values that skyrocket beyond the reach of local community members.
The Gateway Park Project is just a mundane example of this trend. In the post 1980s neoliberal city, it’s common that a nebulous local growth machine like the EDCC will partner with a college-as-developer to “revitalize” an area, Baldwin writes. “These university developments also reorganize their host cities for new private investments in the bioscience and information-technology industries.”
The partnership on the Gateway Park Project back in the 2000s was a momentary coinciding of interests, at a time when white flight was a not-too-distant memory and the pre-packaged “luxury urban experience” was just on the horizon. In this time period, the college-as-developer came to be called an “anchor institution” in the parlance of city government. Baldwin:
“These institutions have been given the keys to drive the urban economy forward by reorganizing urban space to best service their institutional desires, as much or more than any public interest.”
It is laughable to think that WPI would value the local political class’s pet tourism industry over its own institutional objectives. The claim that the preservation of the hotels is in the “public interest” is dubious to begin with, but even if it was, the university is just straight up not going to care. To try to shame them into it, as we’ve been doing for the past few weeks, is petulant behavior. Stupid and embarrassing.
MCPH, with its massive portfolio of downtown property holdings, plays a much larger role than WPI in the EDCC’s urban renewal scheme. And yet they pay into the city less than half of what WPI does via PILOT. At $1.71 billion, MCPH’s endowment is also larger even than Holy Cross’s, our most “elite”-postured institution.
Housing, on the other hand, is a bonafide public interest. And colleges hurt more than they help. We aren’t having that conversation. We’re just beating up on WPI for taking away our precious little hotels.
Vehicular manslaughter for social murder
The driver who hit and killed 13-year-old Gianna Rose Simonichi on Belmont Street has been charged with motor vehicle homicide, per a quickly buried Telegram story.
Javier Martinez, 44, has also been issued citations for driving to endanger, negligent driving, failure to yield to a pedestrian and speeding, police said.
There’s no WPD press release about this or any other coverage that I’ve seen. I’m surprised to hear the cops did this. It follows a civil citation for the driver that put 13-year-old Ayuen Leet into a coma on Shrewsbury Street.
While there should be consequences for plowing your car into a pedestrian, the charge does not address the wider culpability of the city that makes this a social murder, as Greg Opperman laid out on here a few weeks ago in “This City Kills Children.”
We typically think of these kinds of incidents as unavoidable tragedies, but let’s call them what they are: Murders. Gianna Rose Simoncini was killed as a part of a vast conspiracy that has resulted in the premeditated murder of thousands. Planners, engineers, and politicians designed a system of roads that, for the sake of cars, made pedestrian deaths permissible. This kind of capricious negligence has a name: social murder.
Odds and ends
Thanks for reading! This outlet relies exclusively on direct support from readers, allowing us a freedom of narrative from the growth machine that other outlets, reliant on advertisers, don’t have. I think the main post today is a good example of that.
Related reading/listening from WGBH: “How college students squeeze Boston’s rental market”
Also related, Worcester slumlord Barry Krock is dead. Unfortunately his real estate empire lives on in the hands of his offspring.
The former Sahara Restaurant on Highland Street, briefly a deli, has been sold again to a Boston-based property manager that also owns the Thai Time building, per the Worcester Business Journal.
The weird drama between Holy Cross and the donor behind their new arts center is in the courts now, with a hearing delayed until early October. It looks like part of the drama has to do with Holy Cross declining to allow the donor, Cornelius Prior, to invite three Supreme Court justices to an event. I can’t really make sense of this one.
In my last post I used a picture in which Kate Toomey appeared to be asleep at the city council meeting. She wasn’t it, turns out. She was texting and rolling her eyes and gossiping with Candy Mero- Carlson, which is even worse. Watch it here.
The Mama Roux trailer is at Ralph’s tonight for my good friend Anthony’s birthday. The menu is Chinese food and it’s insane. Stoked.
I noticed a cool new feature when reading these posts in a web browser. Here’s a screenshot of my last post as an example:
On the left side there, you can scroll and flip through the sections in case you want to bounce around from topic to topic. Pretty cool. That’s also what the links do in my Blood Meridian ripoff table of contents, if you haven’t noticed that yet.
Ok that’s all, cya Thursday!
Worcester is not a tourist destination, and not sure why there’s so much work being done to try to make us one. We ARE a city with a lot of colleges and universities, and a fair number of those folks do end up staying in the area to work and raise their kids. Why can’t we lean into being a city that works to house and provide for our actual residents, instead of being so try-hard for tourists? It’s weird.
Brilliant reporting