Contract Without a “Signature”

Have you ever wandered into the middle of a conversation, then had to figure out what the hell people are talking about?

For many months, the City Council was engaged in executive session discussion relative to a series of dormant parcels of land controlled by Sal Lupoli in the Hamilton Canal District (HCD). Last night, the council emerged from those discussions and dove immediately into a “debate” on a series of votes revising our deal with Lupoli.  However, in this writer’s opinion, both Council and Manager were discussing the matter as though the public was privy to what was said in executive session.

To recap, you and I own (and/or owned) a bunch of parcels of land over in the Hamilton Canal District. As it was public land, there were (rightly) listening sessions and workshops about what the public wanted to see in this area and what form the development would take. For two decades, the public asked for and was promised “a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood.”

After years of starts and stops, in the fall of 2020 the city worked out a deal with the Lupoli Companies to execute the shared vision for our property. Lupoli was to develop a parking garage (gag) then move on to to a “signature” high-rise on parcels 2, 3 and 4. That work was to have started in 2023 and construction was to have been substantially completed by 2026. As you are no doubt aware, Lupoli failed to deliver on his end of the deal. Last year, Lupoli came back before the council and advised that rather than a “signature” high-rise that would serve as an anchor to the district, he proposed – without public input- a five-story wood-frame apartment building.

The public comments I heard from councilors suggested that some were opposed to this type of scaled-back development. It sounded like there was an appetite to move on from Lupoli and find someone better. Thereafter, Lupoli held us hostage while the lots sat vacant and the council took to executive session to figure out our options.

Apparently, we had no options.

Last night the council voted 8-2 (Councilors Gitschier and Robinson opposed; Councilor Descoteaux absent) in favor granting Lupoli tax breaks and allowing him to sell those tax breaks, and his interest in the properties to another developer – presumably at a profit.

[Aside on TIF and TIEs: During council and manager discussion, there was some defense of these tax breaks as “necessary” for development. Let’s assume that is true in the reality of 2025.  HOWEVER, policy is the result of human choice. TIFs are not a law of nature. God did not descend from the heavens and insist on a transfer of public money to private developers. In other words, TIFs and TIEs are only “necessary” to the extent we are willing to accept. If follows that when politicians lecture that you have to eat shit on policy, we have the ability to find new politicians.]

In the wake of the vote, I experienced a bit of cognitive dissonance. For the past several months, I’ve been hearing about “game changers” coming to Lowell in the form of the LINC project and the UN Front Runner City designation. Billions (by law you must stress that this word starts with a “B”) of dollars of investment are allegedly on the way. It’s been teased that Lowell has investors chomping at the bit to develop land in the city. So why do we have to settle? It seems logical that a developer that breaks a deal should be held accountable for breaking that deal.  It also seems logical that when your city has people pounding on the door to develop, you’d be holding the high card in a battle with Sal Lupoli.  Apparently not.

As of 8:41 this morning, the executive session minutes have not been published. Based on the context of last night’s discussion, I can kinda-sorta gather that Lupoli was taking a hard-line position that he owned the subject parcels and was free to do whatever he wanted with them. Further, one can surmise that a majority of councilors didn’t have the appetite to push back against a bully and litigate this issue. Rather, the majority prefers a “something is better than nothing” approach and is willing the forego a “signature” anchor to the district in favor of the type of apartment complex you see on the side of Route 93 in Stoneham.

I’ll be keeping an eye out for those meeting minutes to see if I can figure out the following:

1. What was Lupoli’s strongest argument that made you so afraid of litigation?

2.What is the new developer giving us that Lupoli was not? In other words, if the new developer is just going to build what Lupoli offered last year…why isn’t Lupoli building it?

3. If the new developer isn’t building what Lupoli proposed – can you please tell us what the hell is going to be built over there?

4. Can you explain why the new land disposition agreement (LDA) is better than the old one?

5. If there’s so much interest in development in the city, why did you decide to settle?

6. Are you satisfied with the direction the HCD is taking?

6A. If Yes, do you have a head injury?

6B. If No, what are you willing to do to change course?

The Return of the Motion Tracker

The first quarter of 2025 is in the books, and here’s where we stand. Quantity does not equal quality – but quantity can have quality all its own:

\