After 20 years, Waltham explores taking 67 Crescent St. lot by eminent domain

The City Council voted this week to use eminent domain to take a lot at 67 Crescent St. that has been drawing residents’ attention for almost 20 years.
The lot has been vacant since approximately 1975, according to Ward 9 councilor Robert G. Logan. The city attempted to buy it in 2008 and again in 2016, both times aiming to use the land for a South Side pocket park. City agents were not able to reach an agreement either time, and in both cases the funding approved for the purchase expired after a year.
This time, Logan and Ward 8 councilor Cathyann Harris have requested the council take a more definitive step: taking the land by eminent domain.
“[It’s] just the fact that it has dragged on for so long. At some point we need to acquire that property,” Logan told The Waltham Times.
In a 2016 funding application, Logan and then Ward 8 councilor Stephen Roarke proposed taking the property by eminent domain. If the city did that, it would compel the owner to sell the property to the city for a price determined by city officials.
Logan said he’s generally reluctant to use eminent domain, but he told the City Council that Mayor Jeannette A. McCarthy had tried to open negotiations with the property owner as recently as 2025 but had not received any response.
Councilors voted 11–2 in favor of requesting that McCarthy take the land by eminent domain. Ward councilor Anthony LaFauci and Ward 5 councilor Joey LaCava voted against the motion.
LaFauci additionally requested a Law Department opinion on the taking of the land by eminent domain.
The path so far
Logan said he first heard of the property in 2007 from resident Susan Brown, a former member of the Conservation Commission. The Waltham Community Development Plan, created by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council in 2004 and adopted in 2007, wrote that the site had been identified by nearby residents as a potential South Side park.
In 2008 the City Council approved the use of Community Preservation Act funding to purchase the lot, but the attempt to purchase it didn’t work out.
The city continued to keep an eye on the property, receiving an assessment of its value in 2012 and then again in 2015, when Community Preservation Committee documents listed its sale price as $227,000. Waltham once more attempted to purchase it in 2016, when Logan and then Ward 8 councilor Stephan Roarke again requested CPA funding for the purpose.
At the time Logan estimated it would cost $675,750 to both purchase and develop the park. The City Council in 2017 offered to pay $400,000 for the property. The owner refused, and the city refused to raise its bid.
67 Crescent St. is small enough that Logan and Harris consider it “unbuildable”, because it would require a zoning amendment to build residentially. “[The owners’] idea of what they could build on it would be based on the City Council granting a zone change and a special permit, which is unlikely,” Logan said. “It would be cost prohibitive.”
Still, according to City Council documents, a real estate agent representing the property owner in 2017 turned down the city’s $400,000 bid, pointing to the lot’s “highly desirable” waterfront location along the Charles River and existing residential construction on even smaller nearby lots.
Logan and Harris both referred to the lot as a “blight,” claiming that it has been used in the past as a site for dumping refuse. They said they had received constituent complaints about rats on the property, although the Health Department reported that it does not have a file of complaints about the site.
South Side’s need for green space

Neither councilor offered specifics about the park the city hoped to build on the land, but Harris said the site would keep some of its current trees, clear some brush and be managed in a way to encourage the health of local wildlife and the Charles River.
“This would take what I see as an unbuildable eyesore property and restore it to a beautiful green space,” Harris said.
The 67 Crescent St. parcel appears in the City of Waltham’s 2015 Open Space Master Plan as the only suggested site for a pocket park on the South Side.
Logan said South Side residents need more parks, but it’s difficult to find space for them. “It’s the more densely developed urban core of the city, and there just aren’t that many properties,” he said.
He admitted that the City Council hasn’t fully explored other options for pocket parks. “There may be some other places that we could look at, but given the fact that we haven’t gotten anywhere on this one yet, it’s a little early to be turning our attention to try to get something else,” he said.
Logan and Harris said lots like the nearby 220 Moody St. would be poor choices for green space, because their central locale would make them very expensive to purchase and converting them to parks could interrupt the downtown Moody Street environment the city is cultivating.
Although the state Department of Conservation and Recreation maintains the Riverwalk and Forest Grove Park, 67 Crescent St. would be the first city-owned green space on the Charles River’s south bank.
“We’re working diligently to put in parks,” said Harris. ”They’re so critical to people’s daily life and way of life that … there’s wild support for this on the South Side, and I know citywide.”
She added, “I think [67 Crescent St. is] truly a unique greenspace. It’s not a huge footprint, but its impact would be huge to the neighborhood.”
Comments (7)
Comments are closed.

I believe the problem is the lot, due to prohibitive Charles River Conservation issues, cannot get a permit to build so the owner is stuck. Its seems like extortion to not let an owner build and instead take the lot for a price the extorter determines. Thats not right. Let the owner build an attractive residential or commercial structure and improve the neighborhood, or come to a mutually agreeable price for Waltham to make it a park. This is not greed on the owner, its power and control by the government that is the problem
If the owner of the property had intended to build on it, then why hadn’t they done it long ago? It’s such a shame to have blighted property in the city for such a long time that becomes of no use and that detracts from the attractiveness of the city. There’s the building next to Hogan Tire & Auto on Main Street that’s been empty and blighted for decades. There’s a point in which private ownership becomes so selfish and greedy that the city ought to be able to do something. I’m not a fan of eminent domain, but neither am I a fan of such neglect and greed that damages the quality and use of property which, among other things, can cause health problems. I don’t know if neighboring towns have a problem of this kind to a considerable extent.
That is a far cry from the 1.2 million the owner has been trying to sell it for since 2022. If I remember correctly, the last listing mentioned having drawn up paperwork to request zoning for a multifamily home.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/67-Crescent-St-Waltham-MA-02453/296343352_zpid/?utm_campaign=iosappmessage&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=txtshare
What is the legal threshold for invoking eminent domain? A city ‘need’ or a city ‘want’. I hope real lawyers are looking at the implications.
I hope they pay the owner well. Seems more like the mayor or council dropped the ball by dragging the deals on their feet for so long. So now they want to take it. Fair enough that it’s become a bit of a refuse, but this doesn’t make me look at the council or mayor favorably. Not that they seem to care.
A small urban forest with some public art, would be lovely here. Maybe a memorial theme to celebrate the working class people who toiled in Waltham factories. Or a tribute to the river and indigenous peoples who first lived here. I like the idea of a space that supports a culture of community, respect for the common person, and the true. history of this land. The city could host a competition for ideas. I have seen beautiful outdoor art in Forest Hill’s cemetery, something uplifting and visually refreshing like this would be so affirming for us. PS the amazing mosaic memorial by the river at the Museum of Industry comes to mind.
I love this idea!