Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surplus Property Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council opens debate on selling surplus city properties for affordable homeownership; amends resolve and refers to joint committees
Summary
A council resolution urging study of selling surplus Malden properties for affordable homeownership prompted lengthy debate. After public comments and a council amendment removing two named buildings, the council voted to send the matter to a joint Community Engagement and Public Properties committee.
The Malden City Council debated whether to investigate selling surplus city property to create affordable homeownership opportunities, amending the original proposal to remove two specific buildings and referring the matter to joint committees for further study.
The resolution—introduced by Councillor Spadafore—originally named the Malden Courthouse and the Oak Grove Community Building as potential surplus sites. Several speakers urged preserving those properties for arts, culture and community uses. Tina Lagarde, executive director of Urban Media Arts, told the council the courthouse carries legal use restrictions and a community arts redevelopment plan: “Selling the courthouse would permanently eliminate the potential for this transformative initiative,” she said, and cited a state bill she said restricted the site’s use to nonprofit recreational, educational or community purposes.
Multiple written submissions and public-comment letters opposed sale of the Oak Grove Community Building. Carol Melly, representing Oak Grove Improvement Association, described the building’s civic history and said the group is pursuing community preservation grants to restore and reopen it. Written comments from residents and groups called for more community engagement before any sale.
Councillors debated competing priorities. Councillor Spadafore said the city faces budget pressure and a housing shortage and argued the underused properties are transit‑oriented sites that could house families rather than remain vacant. Councillor Linehan and others urged a broader, citywide conversation about affordable housing and argued the city should not foreclose reuse options without public input and planning board review. Councillor McDonald emphasized the possibility of phased approaches and additional sites.
Councilors voted 8–2 to amend the resolve by striking references to the Malden Courthouse and the Oak Grove Community Building and later voted to refer the amended resolve to a joint meeting of the Community Engagement & Inclusion Committee and the Public Properties Committee for further study and public outreach.
The referral is intended to produce a public process to evaluate surplus city parcels, funding options, legal restrictions and potential community benefits before any sale or redevelopment decision.
Next steps: the joint committee(s) will schedule public meetings to gather community input and report back to the full council with findings and recommendations.
