Townhall...
The
Spurned Millionaire’s Vendetta
By Jeff Jacoby
8/11/2011
JOHN
P. WALSH learned five years ago
that some people don’t especially care for him. He still hasn’t gotten
over
that discovery.
Maybe
it’s himself he needs to get
over.
The
revelation that we aren’t
everyone’s cup of tea is something most of us manage to figure out by
the time
we get through kindergarten. But Walsh, a self-made millionaire and
chief
executive of the Elizabeth Grady skin-care salon chain, apparently
didn’t
realize it until 2006, when he tried to buy a unit in a luxury
cooperative on
Beacon Hill and was turned down by the board. Residential co-ops by
definition
are private associations that choose their own shareholders; would-be
residents
may not buy in without the approval of the existing owners. And in the
case of
68 Beacon Street, a nine-story co-op overlooking Boston’s Public
Garden, the
existing owners concluded -- as they put it in their rejection letter
-- that
“Mr. Walsh would not reasonably coalesce as a member of this
cooperative
community.”
In
response, Walsh embarked on a
campaign to paint the co-op’s board, and especially its chairman,
Jonathan
Winthrop, as snobs and social creeps. He told reporters he had been
discriminated against because he lacked “blue blood” and “was not of
the same
social status” as the building’s residents. He filed a lawsuit over his
rejection and claimed in a deposition that he was a victim of “ancient
and
archaic values” by a group of “bigoted people.” The residents of 68
Beacon
Street paid $2.2 million to settle the case -- an outrageous amount of
money,
but worth paying, perhaps, to put an end to Walsh’s vendetta.
Except
that Walsh wasn’t finished.
With the help of friends in the Legislature, he has been pushing for a
law to
make housing cooperatives all but illegal in Massachusetts. Twice
lawmakers
have passed a bill that would allow co-ops to reject a prospective
purchaser
only on strict financial grounds. Twice Governor Deval Patrick vetoed
the bill.
So co-op boards in the Bay State are still free to turn down a would-be
owner
who might be richer than Bill Gates but who, in the board’s judgment,
would not
be a good fit for the community the residents have created for
themselves. The
kind of owner, to take a theoretical example, who thinks being a
self-made
millionaire entitles him to anything he wants, and who is quick to
level
accusations of bigotry -- or to file a lawsuit -- when he doesn’t get
his way.
Now
a third version of Walsh’s bill is
making its way through the Legislature. It would require every co-op to
provide
an explicit justification for its own existence, and a board that
rejected an
applicant would have to detail its reasons in writing. In effect, the
bill
would spell the end of co-ops like the one at 68 Beacon Street. And all
because
Walsh, a rags-to-riches millionaire who grew up in Somerville, felt
snubbed by
the old-money Brahmins who own the building.
Some
lawmakers make no secret of their
hatred for the freedoms of choice and association that co-ops embody.
“When
people get to choose their neighbors, bad things happen,” says state
Senator
Barry Finegold, a cosponsor of Walsh’s bill. “I think it is
fundamentally wrong
and I don’t think that is what we as a state are about.” But then, why
stop
with residential co-ops? Why should people be allowed to choose the
town or
neighborhood they live in? Why should parents have the option of
choosing the
school their children attend? Why should customers be permitted to
choose where
to shop?
Finegold’s
political campaigns, the
Globe reported last month, “have gotten generous financial support from
Walsh.”
Was that fair to Finegold’s opponents? Can’t “bad things happen” if
donors are
free to choose which politicians get their money? And what about
Walsh’s
business? Should anyone who wishes to join the Elizabeth Grady Co.’s
board of
directors be entitled to do so? Suppose Jonathan Winthrop were
nominated for a
seat on Walsh’s board.
Would
Finegold see something
“fundamentally wrong” with allowing Walsh to reject his bid? Every
liberty can
be abused, and every right to choose can result in bad choices. It is
one thing
to curb freedom to prevent fraud or widespread social harm. But in a
free
society, there is no guarantee your feelings will never be hurt. Even
if you’re
John P. Walsh, the law can’t make everyone love you. Not even in
Massachusetts.
Read
it at Townhall
|