Gotcha: The Agreement That Wasn’t

In 2001, the City of Lowell sold the parcel of property currently housing our Senior Center to a group of developers. To everyone who is not completely full of shit, the express intent of the deal was that after 20 years of tenancy, the property would be gifted back to the city. The deal was discussed in public meetings, reported on in the media, the vote transferring property was recorded in the registry of deeds and – most notably – the developers signed an agreement that stated that at the end of the 20-year period, they would gift it back to the city.

Here’s the problem, friends: the deed—the legally controlling document—contains no provision requiring the property to be gifted back. Whatever may have been said publicly or reflected in related agreements, the deed itself is silent. From a strictly legal standpoint, that omission is enormous. You’d be forgiven for questioning whether the city administration in 2001 was incompetent, corrupt, or both.

Consequently, the 20-year period has expired and the current owners of the property are playing what could be viewed as a bad-faith game of “gotcha.” Last night, the council was faced with two options: (1) enter into a new lease with the legal owners, or (2) reject a lease and pursue litigation to re-take the property.

The council was tasked with a vote that would authorize Manager Golden to enter into a new 15-year lease with an annual payment of $504,000.

Those in favor of the lease made a practical argument.

First, the rent is currently funded through federal block grants. In other words, a significant portion of the cost is borne more by American taxpayers rather than directly by Lowell taxpayers. Second, if the City were to regain ownership, it would assume responsibility for all maintenance and capital improvements. A study by Gale Associates reportedly estimates that the building will require approximately $7.5 million in improvements in the coming years.  Thus, putting aside the deed issues, we may have backed into a better financial deal. 

[Quick aside: Does anyone think the current owners would spend $7.5M in the coming years? Please be serious.]

Opponents of the lease focused on different concerns. Some believe the City could prevail in litigation and reclaim what was always intended to be returned. Others expressed a lack of trust in the current ownership group. Still others pointed to the lack of clarity surrounding the proposed lease’s terms and long-term implications.

As to the latter, it was extremely frustrating to watch last night’s discussion without having the proper information to judge each councilor’s position. Much of the discussion on this topic has been behind closed doors in executive session. On February 3 (I think), the council voted to release those minutes. Like a sucker, I thought that going to the section of the city’s website titled “Executive Session Minutes” would be a good place to find things like executive session minutes.

However, they were never posted there. There’s nothing for 2026, and the last 2025 release was in April. I have no idea where these minutes would have been “released” to. As a result, if you’re like me, you remain in the dark about how the legal analysis evolved and what arguments were made behind closed doors.

Compounding that frustration, Councilor Juran noted that portions of the new lease proposal have not yet been reviewed by councilors—let alone made available to the public.

When information is limited and the history is murky, skepticism naturally fills the gap. In the end, I think this is why people are so hyped up over a property issue. Beginning in 2001, the government failed to protect the rights of Lowellians. There is a sense that something shady happened, and the lack of transparency on this topic persists to the current day.

In the end, the Council split 5–5. Councilor Mercier abstained due to her position on the Council on Aging.

Voting in favor of the lease were Councilors Scott, Rourke, Nuon, Descoteaux, and Chau. Opposed were Mayor Gitschier and Councilors Juran, Liang, McDonough, and Robinson.

A tie vote means the lease failed.

What happens next is uncertain. Litigation remains a possibility. A revised proposal could emerge. Or negotiations may continue behind the scenes.

Your guess is as good as mine as to what happens next.

Stay tuned!