At least two opposing sides already claim victory. John O. Mirick, Bell's attorney, who so far has four civil suits riding on the case, says the law is on his side. He was already successfully in the first civil appeal, which challenged the Historical Commission's imposition of penalties for violation of the landmark ordinance. In it. Doyle contended that Sullivan's signature approving the construction drawings constituted the board's approval of the demolition.
"I asked him to sign the drawings just to be sure everyone understood what would happen. I assumed he was an architect and could interpret the plans." Doyle says. At least half a dozen meetings with a commission's subcommittee also support his claim that he was upfront with the city officials.
Sullivan, on the other hand, says he was tricked. "In the middle of the roll of drawings that I signed there were pages that we had never seen." On those hidden pages, he claims, were the descriptions of the demolition that would leave only the facade.
By applying the moratorium the commission seems to be standing behind Sullivan. One commissioner accused Doyle of "intellectual dishonesty" Although it may not be for another seat, the commission will have to face Mirick in a suit for damages accruing from the construction delay. So far, the delay has cost Doyle and Bell an estimated $70,000 in legal fees and interest payments on a construction loan.
Cambridge citizens whom city councilors, commissioners and even Doyle, claim to be looking after, seem to be at odds in this case. "As a taxpayer, I hate to see so much money being wasted on legal fees," says Doyle.
Immediate neighbors of 1564 Massachusetts Avenue expressas many opnions as there are new condominiums in the desirable neighborhood. Michael Magruder, a resident of 1572 Massachusetts Avenue, called Doyle "very agreeable and open to discussion." At the commission's October 4 meeting, he said "we think we can live with the development plan and are anxious to see the matter resolved as soon as possible."
"Mr. Doyle has not acted in good faith," asserts another nearby resident. Powell Woodward, who tried single, handedly to stop the demolition on the morning of June 14. His worries go beyond, the loss of an historical landmark. "The evidence is pretty strong that Mr. Doyle and Mr. Bell are in it for the money." Woodward says.
He chided Bell as an absentee landlord who let the building deteriorate for its five low-and moderate-income tenants. Within a year and a half after Doyle's original application for demolition--before the site was declared a landmark--two cases of arson gutted the structure. After some tenants moved out after the first fire. Woodward accuses Bell of removing the units' radiators to discourage future tenants. After the second confirmed arson. "Bell left the building exposed to the elements for two years," according to Woodward.
Other area residents seem most concerned about the increasing modernity of the neighborhood. Sheila Cooke, whose Follen St, house would face the back of the proposed townhouses, calls it "an undeground barge" because the structure will have underground parking.
City Councilor David E. Sullivan--who sponsored the 1981 landmark ordinance and faces a suit for inappropriate interference--sees a more serious problem with allowing Doyle to proceed with the proposed construction. He decried the demolition as a gross violation of city authority--one which demands punishment. "I'm sure the [State Building Codes]. Appeals Board decision will be overturned." Sullivan predicts, resulting in a denial of a building permit for Doyle.
Doyle scoffs at Councilor Sullivan's assurance. He states convincingly that he had no motive to purposely mislead the Historical Commission. "If you're gonna live in a city," says the Cambridge native, "and do business in an on-going way, you try to do work within the regulation. You don't want to alienate city officials."
The commission's decision yesterday to impose the moratorium and appeal the State Building Code Appeals Board, however, make it clear that Doyle has alienated city fathers. The future of the property now hinges on a Superior Court determination of who is tells the truth: the commissioner Sullivan or Doyle.