May 28, 2023

The Council agenda last Tuesday was relatively brief, mostly because of the continued repercussions of the April 24 cyberattack. Much of the discussion involved the potential use of the Superior Courthouse at 360 Gorham Street as part of the solution to the city’s homelessness situation.

One motion by Councilors Corey Robinson and Erik Gitschier asked for a letter to be sent to a batch of state-level agencies suggesting the Superior Courthouse be considered as a pilot “restorative center”; and a second motion by Councilor Robinson asked the Mayor to create a “restorative center” committee to explore the same objective at the city level.

In Chapter 69 of the Acts of 2018, the Massachusetts State Legislature created the Middlesex County Restoration Center Commission. As of 2022, the co-chairs of this commission were Middlesex County Sheriff Peter Koutoujian and Dr. Danna Mauch, President and CEO of the Massachusetts Association for Mental Health. Other members include representatives of entities that deal with everything that contributes to homelessness.

The mission of this Commission seems to be:

• Investigate the gaps and needs in behavioral health and diversionary services in Middlesex County that could prevent arrest and unnecessary emergency department utilization among individuals with behavioral health conditions.

• Develop a service model for a Restorative Center pilot program in Middlesex County.

• Implement a Restoration Center pilot program in Middlesex County.

The Commission has a “one-pager” that describes its mission. From what I can see, the Commission has done a lot of planning and analysis but has not reached the “establish a site” phase of its work. The Superior Courthouse might be a timely and attractive option for the Commission.

In general, a “restorative center” aims to provide comprehensive services and support to individuals experiencing homelessness. These centers are designed to assist homeless individuals in regaining stability, accessing necessary resources, and ultimately transitioning out of homelessness. Restoration centers often offer a range of services under one roof, making it easier for individuals to access the assistance they need. These services may include:

• Housing assistance

• Case management (coordinate services such as healthcare, mental health counseling, substance abuse treatment, employment support, and more.)

• Basic needs support: (basic necessities such as food, clothing, hygiene products, and shower facilities.)

• Health services: (on-site healthcare clinics or partnerships with healthcare providers to offer medical care, including primary care, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, and assistance with accessing health insurance.)

• Employment and education support: (job training, employment counseling, resume building, and assistance with job searches.)

• Benefits assistance: (Help accessing public benefits they may be eligible for, such as Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Social Security, or disability benefits.)

The Superior Courthouse is a unique structure that does not easily lend itself to reuse. The parcel of land it sits upon was acquired by Middlesex Count in 1847, and the first building constructed was completed in 1850. That is the red brick Romanesque Revival style building that sits towards the rear of the lot. It was initially constructed right along Gorham Street but in 1894 was moved 60 feet backwards to make way for a new addition. The “new” building is visible along Gorham Street today. It was constructed of limestone and has a different architectural style with distinctive Greek columns at the entrance. This building opened in September 1898.

Besides the spacious grounds of the Courthouse, the complex comes with several other lots on the other side of Elm Street. A cluster of three lots was purchased by Middlesex County in 1950. One of these was known as the “jurors’ parking lot” at the corner of Elm and Linden; the other two are smaller, vacant lots on either side of Auburn Street which are used by neighbors for parking.

Another lot on Elm Street was added in 2005 when a house there was taken by the city in forfeiture proceedings and then torn down. The resulting vacant lot was conveyed to the Commonwealth.

When contemplating how a private redevelopment of the Courthouse might work financially, I’ve always looked to these other lots as providing more lucrative opportunities for new construction of multifamily residences that might offset the cost of rehabilitating the courthouse. If the Restorative Center proposal goes anywhere, these lots could perhaps be developed into specialized housing by nonprofit partners such as CTI or CBA.

As for the Courthouse itself, it’s a solid building that has a relatively new roof on the 1850 portion. Heat is provided by a 1960s-vintage forced hot water radiator system powered by twin gas boiler that are approximately 20 years old. There are no fire suppression sprinklers and bathroom facilities are limited.

The building was not designed for modern accessibility standards. In fact, one of the biggest obstacles to accessibility is that the floors in the respective buildings are not at the same elevation. In other words, the first floor of the 1850 building is about three feet higher than the first floor of the 1898 building. A maze of internal ramps deal with that elevation differential but it’s an awkward workaround.

For many years, access to the second floor was provided by a chair lift but for almost as many years the chair lift didn’t work. Eventually, a court order obtained by the state’s Architectural Access Board compelled the Trial Court to construct an elevator. While what was done was done well – a turret was added to the building’s exterior and made to blend in visually with the older building – the elevator only services the first and second floors. Getting into the building from street level still requires a long ramp that runs parallel to the Gorham Street sidewalk.

The basement and the third and fourth floors provide a multitude of spaces that would convert easily to office use, but none of them are accessible other than by narrow iron staircases and making them accessible in the modern sense would be a huge expense.

As for the spaces on the first and second floors, they provided majestic courtrooms, but their very high ceilings and large open floor plans make repurposing them for anything other than courtrooms almost prohibitively expensive.

All of that taken together has led me to the conclusion that no private entity could remake the Superior Courthouse in a way that was financially viable. Would a publicly financed project be feasible? Yes, in the sense that if you put enough money into almost any building you can do great things with it. It seems like there is a lot of government money available for responses to homelessness. Lowell is not alone in facing that challenge and no place else seems to have figured out how to effectively address it, so if the city and its current and future partners made a serious pitch, state and Federal governments might make enough money available to create a “restorative center” on Gorham Street.

Whether the city can get behind such an effort remains to be seen. Certainly, the neighbors of the Courthouse would be understandably concerned about this contemplated use. They could rightly point to the South Common which is almost unusable by the public as a burden they already shoulder.

During the discussion Tuesday night, several Councilors asserted that the Tewksbury State Hospital would be a better site for a Restorative Center. That led Councilor Dan Rourke to pointedly request City Manager Tom Golden to seek a definitive response from state government on the likelihood of Tewksbury being used. If that’s being seriously considered, I think everyone would cheer and try to make it work. On the other hand, if Tewksbury is the public policy equivalent of buying a scratch ticket to solve your financial dilemma, we should stop pining for it and focus on a more realistic and achievable solution.

Which is not to say a Restorative Center at Tewksbury would solve or greatly reduce Lowell’s homelessness problems. Would people now living on the streets of Lowell go there voluntarily? Like everyone else, people on the street want some of the small pleasures of life. That might be a Dunkin Donuts coffee, a six-pack of beer, or (regrettably) a bag of heroin. They can get all those things in their current environment. Presumably they can also get the money to purchase those things. Would those same things be available on the grounds of the Tewksbury State Hospital? If they are not, how many will opt not to seek the services offered there. At least, with the services nearby in downtown Lowell, there’s a chance some might be helped.

A couple of final considerations: I understand that former UMass Lowell Chancellor Bill Hogan used to say that the school lost more prospective students on their drive from the Lowell Connector to the Campus than for any other reason. That’s another way of saying that the gateways into the city are of great importance. The city has never done a great job with either the Thorndike Street or Gorham Street corridors. The current chain link fencing that encases the Superior Courthouse doesn’t help with that, but neither would dozens of people lounging on the sidewalk while they access services inside the building. If any plan for a restorative center goes forward, how it interacts with the neighborhood but also how it fits into that city gateway must be a big part of the process.

But if the restorative center is not feasible, what will happen to the Courthouse? I support historical preservation, but I recognize that some buildings just can’t be saved. However, it is far too early to talk about demolishing the Superior Courthouse. Just because a new use for an old building doesn’t seem immediately available, tearing the thing down prematurely is short-sighted. But it’s important to put the building in the condition to be rehabbed when circumstances change. When the Archdiocese of Boston closed St. Peter’s Church, they failed to maintain the building. It deteriorated so much that it had to be demolished. The city has chosen a similar path for the Smith Baker Center. All that remains for that structure is to summon the wrecking ball. Both are examples of demolition by neglect. That shouldn’t be allowed to happen to the Superior Courthouse.

****

Between the School Department and the City-side of government, more than $1 million will be spent to provide city employees with two years of credit monitoring services to help remediate the harm done in the April 24 cyberattack.

****

The City Manager announced that the FY24 city budget will be presented to Councilors at their June 6 meeting and that a public hearing on the budget will be held at a Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday, June 20, 2023.  

****

A unanimous decision announced this week by the United States Superior Court may affect Lowell. In Tyler v Hennepin County, the Court held that a Minnesota law that allowed a local government to sell a home for unpaid property taxes and then keep any money from the sale that exceeded the taxes due was a government taking of property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Massachusetts and fourteen other states have similar laws, and these are the basis of the tax lien auctions that have become so popular here over the past decade. The city of Lowell is in the process of scheduling such an auction for delinquent tax accounts in the city. Considering this Supreme Court decision, it might be wise to hold off on scheduling that for now.