How Affordable Housing Dies in Waltham

The story of the Armory proposal sheds light on the undemocratic patterns of behavior that prevent affordable housing projects from happening in Waltham despite popular support and available funds.

In a previous post we featured an exciting plan by two local non-profits, WATCH CDC and Metro West CD, to turn the vacant, historic Waltham Armory building into affordable rental housing. Waltham’s Community Preservation Committee voted to approve the idea last November, and over 2,000 people have signed a petition in support.

On Feb. 1, the project went before the Waltham’s City Council’s Committee of the Whole. City councilors seemed to be aware that the Armory project, and affordable housing in general, have popular support in Waltham. Councilor Patrick O’Brien said “I don’t want anyone in the community to think that this council is killing affordable housing.” The mayor was present and stated several times that she supports affordable housing at the Armory.

Waltham has millions of dollars in community preservation funds that could be used to create new affordable housing with matching funds from the state, but has chosen to spend it on other things, or not to spend it at all.

But after over an hour of contentious and confusing discussion of procedural issues, the committee voted to send the matter back to the CPC, essentially restarting the approval process from step one. According to the mayor, Metro West CD was missing required documents in their application, but it is not clear whether it is possible for them to obtain those documents, or why they are necessary. The popular project is now in bureaucratic limbo and it is unclear when or if it will move forward.

The Waltham Armory. Photo: Magicpiano, CC BY-SA 4.0.

The number of unhoused people in Waltham has been growing since the beginning of the pandemic and economic downturn, and so has the number of low-income as well as middle-income people struggling to pay rent. It’s tempting to see this kind of problem as unavoidable-- if our government tried to guarantee affordable homes for everyone, it would be prohibitively expensive and cause our taxes to skyrocket, right? But in fact, Waltham has millions of dollars in community preservation funds that could be used to create new affordable housing with matching funds from the state, but has chosen to spend it on other things, or not to spend it at all.

Those funds come from a small surcharge on property taxes that Waltham voters approved in 2005, largely because of concerns about affordable housing. But since then, Waltham has only spent a small portion of its community preservation funds on housing, and has not spent a single dollar on projects that would create new units of affordable housing. This means homelessness and high rents in Waltham are choices made by our leaders, even after we raise our own taxes to address them.

How does affordable housing fail to happen for so long in a city where voters support it? The answers are hidden in long and convoluted series of meetings which can be difficult for the public to follow. But the story of the Armory provides a window into an opaque and undemocratic process in which officials guide projects into bureaucratic limbo while claiming to be merely enforcing rules, and use bully-like tactics to drown out those who question them.

A TRADITION OF INACTION

Demands for affordable housing in Waltham are not new, and neither are stymied attempts to create it. Watch CDC has been looking at the possibility of turning the Armory into affordable housing since 2001.

That same year, the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston made an unsuccessful attempt to work with the City of Waltham to create new housing on church land here. At the time, Cardinal Bernard Law called the Boston area’s shortage of affordable housing "a serious moral crisis for those of us concerned about families and the destructive division of society into rich and poor."

When our current Mayor Jeanette McCarthy ran in 2003, she promised that two of five school buildings that the city was considering closing would be turned into affordable housing. Just one, the Banks school, became housing, and only after WATCH CDC and other advocates held rallies to remind her of the promise.

In 2018 a Boston Globe article estimated that between 2010 and 2016, Waltham added 11,000 jobs, but only a few hundred homes, resulting in many people who work here being unable to live here. That article noted a plan to convert an aluminum warehouse into affordable housing, which was opposed by local officials.

Mayor McCarthy was quoted as saying “I don't believe in taking commercial property off commercial tax rolls as it negatively impacts the city's residential taxpayers." In other words, if revenue from commercial property taxes decreases, this could cause the city to raise residential property taxes. This assumes that the property in question would have been used for a commercial purpose, so it’s not clear how this applies to properties that have been vacant for years. It begs the question of whether the mayor opposes all forms of affordable housing that could theretically reduce the potential tax value of a property.

“I don't believe in taking commercial property off commercial tax rolls as it negatively impacts the city's residential taxpayers." - Mayor McCarthy

Longstanding resistance to affordable housing is not unique to Waltham. Back in 1969, Massachusetts passed state law Chapter 40B with the goal that at least 10% of housing in each municipality should be affordable. Waltham is one of many cities and towns that have not met this goal. At the Feb. 1 meeting Waltham’s housing director reported that once all currently permitted housing projects are completed, Waltham will still need about 100 more units to get to 10%.

Waltham is about 100 units short of the 10% affordable housing goal set by Chapter 40B.

When a city or town is below the 10% threshold, the law allows developers who want to build affordable housing to bypass zoning ordinances and the usual approval processes and build despite local objections. In theory this is an incentive for local governments to cooperate with “friendly” developers who want to work with them on an affordable housing project that reflects community input. 

But local officials may not take the threat of a “hostile” 40B project seriously, in part because although they cannot stop it, they can find ways to slow it down. Also, there may not be any developers looking to build affordable housing in their community because it is not profitable. This is why communities that are serious about affordable housing often rely on partnerships with non-profit developers such as Metro West CDC.

One frequent enemy of affordable housing is whataboutism. When elected officials are presented with a specific idea to create housing, they point out a possible problem, then say “what about…” and suggest a hypothetical project that would avoid that problem. This gives them a reason to vote against the project in front of them, but the hypothetical perfect project never comes along.

Another frequent enemy of affordable housing is the belief that new units will overburden shared resources such as sewers, roads, and schools, or will change the “character” of the community. These concerns are often driven by homeowners who want to protect their property values. When they bought their home, they did not have to justify their impact on community resources to the local authorities. But they often hold proposed housing for strangers who make less than them to a much higher standard.

One difference between Waltham and many of our suburban neighbors is that the majority of residents here do not own their homes. If popular resistance to affordable housing is driven by owners, there ought to be less resistance here. And in fact, the voters of Waltham have shown their support for affordable housing by electing leaders who claim to support it, and by adopting the Community Preservation Act.

WALTHAM CPC: MILLIONS IN MISSED OPPORTUNITIES

The Community Preservation Act is a MA state law that only applies in cities and towns that have voted to adopt it. Waltham voted to adopt it in 2005. It places a 3% surcharge on property taxes, which goes into a special fund that is administered by a Community Preservation Committee. The money can be used for historic preservation, open space, or community housing, and the money spent is matched dollar-for-dollar by the state.

Other than the Armory project, Waltham CPC has never approved a proposal that would create new units of affordable housing.

According to the law, the CPC must include representatives from the housing authority, conservation commission, planning board, parks commission, and historic commission. This seems designed to give the CPC a degree of independence from other officials. But in Waltham, the mayor appoints the members of all of these bodies, which gives her indirect control over the membership of CPC.

According to Waltham’s ordinance establishing the CPC, projects they fund must be approved by the City Council. They do not need to be approved by the mayor, and she does not have veto power.

The Waltham CPC website includes the applications they have received since 2009. Our review of those applications found that in that time,  they have approved about $50 million in projects, and of this about $6.6M (about 13%) went toward housing-related projects. About $32M (about 65%) was spent on open space projects, about $8M (about 16%) on historic preservation projects, and about $3M (about 6%) on projects that were considered both historic and open space.

Of the approved housing projects, about $3.8M went to emergency voucher programs to help elderly and low-income people pay their rent. The remaining $2.8M went to repairs or upgrades to existing housing. Other than the Armory project, the CPC has never approved a project that would create new units of affordable housing.

According to its website, CPC has received a total of six proposals that would create new units of affordable housing. Two are pending-- the Armory, and another that would redevelop the Leland Home elderly housing. One is listed as "expired" and another is listed as "withdrawn." The CPC has only ever explicitly denied two projects, and both would have created new affordable housing. One was from Metro West CD and the other was from Watch CDC, the two organizations behind the Armory project. The website does not give details of why any project was withdrawn, expired, or rejected.

Edit May 4, 2021: In a late-December meeting, members of the city council’s Long Term Debt Committee asked CPC chair Justin Barret to how much would be left in the CPC fund if they were to approve $5M for the Armory and about $4M for a proposed playground project, and he estimated $7M. Based on these comments the original version of the post estimated that the CPC ended 2020 with about $16M unspent, which appears to have been incorrect.

Since publishing this post, we received a copy of a balance statement for the CPA accounts which was requested from city staff by the Long Term Debt Committee of the City Council. It shows that as of April 2021, the accounts had a total balance of just over $8M. About $700K of that is an accounted earmarked for historical preservation, but the remainder could be used for housing.

Our review of applications found that the CPC has approved about $3.8M in its history on vouchers to help people remain in their homes temporarily. But during one of the most difficult periods in our city’s history, they held onto over $7M that could have been used to address housing insecurity in the short term and long term.

The statement also lists two “pending” projects which are not included in the balance, and they are both housing projects, totaling about $6.4M. Both will need to be approved by the city council, and it will be interesting to see how they fare in that process. The statement does not list the Armory among the “pending” projects, though it is still listed as “pending” on the CPC website.

As of April 2021, after one of the most difficult periods in our city’s history, the CPC had over $7M in unspent funds that could have been used for housing.

SO WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE ARMORY PROJECT?

Part 1: CPC

On November 24 of last year, Jennifer Van Kampen presented the Armory proposal to the CPC on behalf of Metro West CD. The group asked CPC for $5M for a project that would cost $12M-- an additional $5M would come from the state, and Metro West CD would take out a loan for the remaining $2M. For the project to go ahead, the city would also need to agree to a “comprehensive permit” to allow multi-family homes on this property, which is currently zoned for single-family homes.

Metro West CD made an informal agreement with the property’s current owner to purchase it for $3.5M, which they included in the $12M total budget. In their application, they included an appraisal they commissioned of the property, which estimated it would be worth $2.9M to someone purchasing it with the intention of creating multi-family housing.

Several of the CPC members enthusiastically supported the project. A few thought the price sounded high, but were careful to be diplomatic about it, noting they support affordable housing in general. The tone of the meeting changed when the chair, Justin Barret, began to question Van Kampen:

Barret: You’ve got a $3.5M acquisition cost with a $2.9M appraisal. How do you justify it?

Jennifer Van Kampen: That’s a good question, Justin. We know that public lenders can’t lend, or contribute, I should say, their funds in excess of the appraised value. So what we would propose to the owner is that we will buy it for the appraised value-- we will enter into a purchase and sale agreement to purchase it at the appraised value. Should we be able to get a new appraisal after the awarding of the comprehensive permit…

Barret: Whoa whoa whoa whoa! That wouldn’t work for me. 

Van Kampen: Well, hear me out…

Barret: All of a sudden, you’ve gone and made his piece of property more valuable.

Barret seems to be saying that despite all the ways the project would benefit the community, he would rather see the Armory remain vacant than see the current owner get more for the property than he (Barret) believes it is worth. The principle underlying his position appears to be spite.

Barret then asked if Metro West CD had considered building something at the Fernald School site, implying this would be a better deal for the city, which already owns the property. He was serious, but the comment got a laugh from Van Kampen and others in the meeting because it was such an extreme example of whataboutism. 

The city purchased Fernald in 2014 and so far, it has not implemented any of its intended uses for the property, including a museum or memorial to atrocities committed there against children with disabilities. It’s unlikely the city would work with Metro West CD to build housing there and if it did, it could take decades just to make a decision. Barret certainly knows this because he is a member of Waltham Lions Club and helped to organize the controversial holiday light show at the site.

Barret went on to ask if any city councilors were in favor of the project. Daria Gere of WATCH CDC pointed out that Councilor Jonathan Paz, whose ward includes the Armory, was at the meeting to support it, and they also heard from the mayor that she supported it. Barret responded “You did?”

The CPC voted 6-3 to approve the project despite Barret’s objections. But based on his comments, he seemed confident it would not get much further.

Part 2: Long-Term Debt Committee

On Dec. 21, the proposal went before the Long Term Debt Committee of the City Council. After Van Kampen explained the project again, Councilor Kathleen McMenimen noted that it had not been approved unanimously by the CPC, and asked for an explanation from Barrett, the only member of the CPC present. He said that he supports affordable housing, but he voted against this project because the asking price of the property is more than it’s worth. Some of the councilors on the committee seemed to agree, based on their personal experience in real estate (though none has ever bought or sold a historic armory.) 

The committee voted to “table” the matter (put off a decision indefinitely), in part because Councilor George Darcy wanted to organize a visit to the site for city councilors and the public. At their next meeting on Dec. 28, they tabled it again, pushing the process into 2021.

At the committee’s third meeting discussing the Armory, on Jan. 19, Council McMenimen brought up an e-mail sent by Mayor McCarthy to Watch CDC regarding problems with the Armory project application. The mayor said the city also had the Armory appraised, and it is worth much less than Metro West CD’s appraiser believes. She also said in order for the application to be valid, it needed to include a purchase and sale agreement, or other proof that the applicant already has control of the proposed site.

Van Kampen was present, and said she was not surprised that appraisals of the historic amory varied-- it is a difficult thing to appraise because there are so few similar properties to compare it to. In regard to the site control issue, she said “Affordable housing typically runs on a pretty different set of expectations, because it can’t happen at all without your support.” 

She explained that it does not make sense for her organization to sign a purchase and sale agreement before they know whether they have the support of local officials. This was consistent with a presentation she gave to Waltham’s Housing Committee about the organization, in which she listed “local support” as one of their prerequisites for purchasing a property. If the CPC’s rules only allow it to consider proposals from applicants who have already purchased a property, that’s clearly a barrier to working with Metro West CD, and likely other non-profit developers. 

But it’s not clear that the mayor’s interpretation is correct. The Waltham CPC application form does list “proof of site control” as one of the documents that must be attached to the application. But this requirement does not come from the state CPA law, and it is not mentioned in the ordinances establishing Waltham’s CPC. If they CPC voted to include this in their form, can’t they also vote to approve a project that is an exception?

If this is a requirement, it is not clear why it is necessary, and it does not appear to be standard. The Community Preservation Coalition’s website has sample CPC applications from seven MA communities, including our neighbor Lexington, and none contain this requirement. Waltham CPC does not require this for historic or open space projects, only for housing projects. Changing or clarifying this requirement seems like a simple and necessary first step the CPC could take toward improving its record on affordable housing.

After Van Kampen’s explanation, Councilor Paz moved to invite the mayor to a future meeting of the committee to discuss, which passed, and the issue was tabled. However, Councilor McMenimen raised the issue again in the next week’s meeting of the full City Council, suggesting that it should be taken from the Long Term Debt committee and referred elsewhere. Council Carlos Vidal then moved to take the matter from Long Term Debt and re-assign it to the Committee of the Whole, which passed. 

Both explained that they wanted all of the councilors to be informed on the issues, since they would all need to vote on it ultimately. However Councilor McMenimen also said that the proposal would require a two-thirds majority of the council and the approval of the mayor to pass, and she did not believe it had the votes-- in other words, they were sending it to the committee with the expectation it would die there. Other councilors questioned her statement about the two-thirds requirement, which only applies to situations in which the city is purchasing real estate.

Councilor Stanley estimated that if the city passed up the Armory project, it would take 10-20 years to add the same number of units in other ways.

Councilor Tom Stanley seemed to interpret this move and the mayor’s e-mail as attempts to discourage the proposal from moving forward, commenting “It seems like people don’t want this project.” He explained that Waltham needs to work with organizations like Metro West CD to create permanent affordable housing, and if the city does not support this idea, it would be better to let them know explicitly instead of asking them for additional documents. He estimated that if the city passed up the Armory project, it would take 10-20 years to add the same number of units in other ways.

Part 3: Committee of the Whole

The Committee of the Whole is a committee of the Waltham City Council that bizarrely contains exactly the same members as the council itself. Instead of being run by the council president, these meetings are run by the vice president, Councilor McMenimen. For their Feb. 1 meeting, Councilor Darcy and others asked the mayor, an attorney from the city’s law department, and the director of housing to be present to discuss the procedural issues raised around the Armory.

However, the attorney declined to answer nearly all of the councilor’s questions about procedural issues, including the question of whether a two-thirds vote would be required, saying she had not been asked to research them. Councilor Kristine Mackin let the council know that she got in touch with a state official who advised her that since the vote was an appropriation, not a direct purchase of property, a simple majority was required.

The mayor told the councilors that if they were to approve the project, she would need to sign off on an agreement regarding how the money would be handled, and she would refuse to do that because she believes the CPC violated its own rules and state law by approving it. In addition to the “proof of site control” issue, the mayor said the applicants were required to submit a “by right” appraisal, meaning an appraisal that assumes the property will be used according to its current zoning, rather than assuming any special permits or zoning changes. The appraisal submitted by Watch CDC assumed that they would get a comprehensive permit, because the project would not go ahead if they didn’t.

According to the MA CPA law, “no such real property, or interest therein, shall be acquired by any city or town for a price exceeding the value of the property as determined by such city or town through procedures customarily accepted by the appraising profession as valid.” The mayor said that “procedures customarily accepted by the appraising profession as valid” means a by-right appraisal, though she never fully explained why she believes that.

A by-right appraisal does not seem like a fair way to determine the market value of a property, at least not in Waltham, because practically nothing is built here by-right. Waltham’s zoning laws are written so that nearly every building project requires a special permit, allowing city councilors to scrutinize each proposal. It’s very unlikely that anyone would purchase the Armory with the intention of using it by right, and it hasn’t happened in the many years it has been vacant. If Metro West CD were to get a by-right appraisal, it would most likely value the Armory far below the owner’s asking price, which would kill the project.

The mayor suggested that the councilors send the Armory matter back to CPC so they could address these two issues. She said she supports affordable housing at the Armory, but wants to help the council avoid a situation in which she is forced to reject something they send her. As the discussion went on, this became increasingly difficult to believe. When the councilors tried to clarify what would need to happen before the CPC could move the project forward again, she gave confusing and defensive answers, repeating already-understood points in a condescending tone.

In her communications with the city council prior to the meeting, the mayor told them that the city had the Armory appraised for much less than the applicants’ appraisal, but she did not share any of the details of the city’s appraisal such as the assumptions it made. She said she could only share this info in an executive (private) session, but the attorney clarified that the council did not have the option of calling an executive session on this matter. When Councilor Paz tried to ask the mayor about this, Councilor McMenimen interrupted him three times to insist that he say the words “through you Madam Chair to the mayor.” The mayor responded angrily to Paz, saying that by asking her to discuss this publicly he was asking her to violate conflict of interest laws, though she did not entirely explain why.

Despite these questions, most of the councilors seemed to accept as fact that the CPC had violated its own rules, and they voted to send the matter back. However, since this was a committee, they could technically only recommend that the city council vote to send it back. So the next Monday, the city council had to discuss and vote on the recommendation it made to itself.

At that meeting, Councilor Mackin moved to keep the matter with the council until they got answers to the procedural questions that had gone unanswered at the prior meeting. McMenimen responded angrily that the CPC application was “improper” and there was no option but to return it to CPC, calling this a “point of information” and not just her opinion.

She said Mackin’s motion was “out of order” and that she would not vote for it. Despite that, when Mackin was asked to repeat her motion for the clerk to record it, McMenimen interrupted her three times with petty criticisms of her wording.

Councilors Paz and Stanley supported Mackin’s motion. Stanley was clear about what he believed was going on: “I just think the whole way this is going about is really embarrassing. The council is being led by our nose, collective nose, and being told what to do with matters before this legislative body, by someone who is not in the legislative body, and everyone’s just following along.”

However, several other councilors followed McMenimen’s example, making comments in which they took as fact that there was no option but to return the matter to CPC because it violated its own rules, and expressing frustration with their peers who did not seem to get it. The council voted down Mackin’s motion and approved the recommendation to send the matter back to CPC with a request that they address the missing documents.

Just before this passed, Councilor Vidal moved to amend the wording from “request” to “demand.” This served no purpose except to hammer home the idea that the CPC did something wrong, but it passed.

In theory, the next step is for Metro West CD to provide the CPC with a new appraisal and a purchase and sale agreement. But Van Kampen made it clear they won’t sign a purchase and sale agreement if they don’t have support from local officials, and based on the results of these meetings, it seems clear that they do not. But none of the elected officials involved have said publicly that they oppose the project, making it difficult for voters to understand what went wrong. The project appears to be mired in unintentional bureaucracy, when in fact it was intentionally killed.

HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD?

Waltham needs to stop treating developers like Metro West CD as likely scammers, and instead treat them as necessary partners in solving a decades-old problem. The CPC approval process should be an opportunity for organizations with good ideas to cooperate with officials to solve potential legal problems. It shouldn’t require an organization to have solved all problems before it comes to the table. The CPC should review its application process and remove unnecessary barriers, following the examples of communities that have had more success creating housing. Applicants should not be required to purchase a property before requesting money to purchase a property.

But those changes will only go so far if elected officials find ways to block projects that have been approved by CPC. The mayor is not up for re-election until 2023, but the entire city council is up for re-election this November. We need elected officials who not only say they support affordable housing, but are prepared to stand up to the forces that prevent it. The Armory story offers some insight into what that means.

We need officials who will not engage in whataboutism, brushing aside real opportunities in favor of hypothetical ones.

We need officials who will not engage in whataboutism, brushing aside real opportunities in favor of hypothetical ones. One way to insure this might be to ask candidates to commit to supporting specific affordable housing projects that have already been proposed. But once they are in office, we need to pay attention to what happens to those projects, even if it requires following long, complicated stories like this one.

We need councilors who will do their own research on issues and rules, and seek help when necessary from experts who are not part of the city’s executive branch, rather than relying on what they are told in meetings. Councilor Mackin sets a good example in this regard. When she told the council what she learned from a state official regarding the two-thirds majority issue, she began with “I’m not a lawyer, but…” This is a phrase councilors should get comfortable using more often. Rules and ordinances must be understood not only by lawyers, but by the people making them.

We need councilors who will do their own research on issues and rules, and seek help when necessary from experts who are not part of the city’s executive branch, rather than relying on what they are told in meetings.

We do not need officials who claim to be enforcing rules when they are in fact pursuing their agenda, or who respond angrily when their interpretation of the rules is questioned. The mayor sets the example for this type of behavior, but Councilor McMenimen stands out as the worst offender on the council. She routinely uses “point of order” and “point of information” interruptions to dominate meetings, and scolds her peers as if they were misbehaving children. The council would likely be more civil and far more efficient without her.

We need a city council that represents the needs of all Waltham residents. Although the majority of us rent our homes, all but one of our current councilors (Paz) are property-owners. City Council meeting are dominated by discussions of special permits for buildings, which allow councilors to scrutinize projects based on the interests of neighboring property-owners. By comparison the council spends far less time on certain issues that are important to the entire community, such as affordable housing. 

We all need start paying attention to our government, even when it seems our government is not paying attention to us.

We need councilors who can work effectively with the current system while also working to change the priorities. This is a lot to ask, because it requires both cooperating with and standing up to long-entrenched systems and attitudes. To reduce the time the council spends on special permits, for example, would likely require changing zoning ordinances, which would be no easy task. Candidates who are willing to attempt real change in Waltham will need consistent and well-informed public support to have a real chance at success. 

This means spreading the word to our neighbors that we all need start paying attention to our government, even when it seems our government is not paying attention to us. It’s easy to brush off long, tedious government meetings as irrelevant to our everyday lives, but in fact this is where our community makes choices that cause some of us to become homeless and many of us to struggle, month after month and year after year, to make rent.

SOURCES:

Waltham CPC Website
Contains ordinances and applications 2009-present.

Community Preservation Coalition Website
Contains text of CPA law and example applications.

Waltham CPC Meeting 11/24/20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J39DDreblg

Long-Term Debt Committee Meeting 12/21/20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK4_MiRGDxg&t=35s

Long-Term Debt Committee Meeting 12/28/20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URHk9gEBIVw&t=267s

Long-Term Debt Committee Meeting 01/19/21
Special City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings - YouTube

City Council Meeting 01/25/21
City Council Meeting - YouTube

Committee of the Whole Meeting 02/01/21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2OFp0hkm1U&t=9867s

City Council Meeting 02/08/21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnWUBuxvxks&t=1725s

Logan, T. (2018, Jul 08). Live where you work? in waltham, that's not so easy. Boston Globe (Online) 

Siek, S. V. (2006, Mar 23). HOUSING ADVOCATES PRESS CASE: [THIRD EDITION]. Boston Globe

WALTHAM HOUSING STALL: [THIRD EDITION]. (2001, May 31). Boston Globe 

Kocian, L. (2001, Apr 01). WILL ARMORY HOUSE PEOPLE OR ARCHIVES? IN CITY SHORT ON SPACE, TWO PLANS FOR ONE BUILDING: [THIRD EDITION]. Boston Globe