Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Renewal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brockton council committee questions scope, purchases and blight designation in Love Brook urban renewal plan
Summary
Planners presented the Love Brook urban renewal plan and two buildout scenarios; councilors pressed on blight rulings, potential property acquisitions and relocation costs, and whether the Redevelopment Authority has resources to implement the plan. The finance committee returned the order "recommended unfavorably" but asked for amended MEPA language to be posted for public review.
Planners from the city and consultant Inis Land Strategies Group introduced the Love Brook urban renewal plan — a framework intended to unlock redevelopment along Oak Street and North Pearl and to provide a regulatory and financing path for either life‑sciences or alternative mixed‑use development.
The presentation by Evan Sears of the Planning Department and Emily Keys Inis outlined three implementation pieces: the urban renewal plan, a form‑based zoning code to follow, and a district improvement financing (DIF) mechanism to recover infrastructure costs. Inis said the plan is intended to give the city "flexibility to move forward" amid changing market conditions and emphasized the plan would not obligate city operating funds: "What it does not include is city operational or capital funds," she told councilors.
Councilors used the presentation to press for detail. Several raised alarms about the plan’s list of potential acquisitions and the word "blighted" appearing in findings — language that triggers eminent‑domain authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 121B. Councilor Farwell said he was uncomfortable labeling the area decadent and noted the plan lists 19 buildings that could be demolished in some scenarios. "I just can't embrace that," he said, while asking if businesses had been informed that they might face acquisition or relocation. Planners responded that they had made outreach efforts, including door‑to‑door visits, and that the plan assumes private redevelopment wherever possible; in practice any acquisition would require funding, relocation obligations and, in many cases, a plan amendment to remove properties that redevelop under private ownership.
A second area of sustained questioning was cost and timing. Planners said the financial model relies on grants, DIF proceeds, and private investment — not city operating funds — but acknowledged revenue estimates and assessed values would be updated before state review. Councilors pressed what would happen if grants failed to materialize or property values rose sharply. Emily Inis pointed out that the authority to acquire land does not compel acquisition and that successful private redevelopment would remove parcels from an acquisition list.
Other questions focused on environmental and legal risks: the plan identifies potential contaminated ("hazardous materials") sites and recommends site‑by‑site evaluation; councilors asked who would cover remediation costs and noted relocation and eminent‑domain litigation risks could be substantial.
After two hours of targeted questioning and a roll‑call on technical amendments, the finance committee voted to send the order to the full city council "recommended unfavorably" while directing staff to post updated MEPA‑related text and the consultant memorandum for the public before the council’s public hearing. Planners said they would return with revised language and anticipated additional public engagement prior to final state submission.
