To the Editor:

As the plaintiffs in the 99 Melville Avenue case you wrote about last week, we would like to clarify a couple of points in an otherwise quite accurate story.

We never initiated the idea of tearing down anybody's house. In November 2001, when we filed our appeal of the Zoning Board's variances at 99 Melville, there was no house, only a 37-foot-wide side yard (13 feet short of the minimum requirement) on which the proposed house would sit. Immediately, the O'Flahertys sought legal counsel and responded to our appeal. Yet two months later, they obtained a building permit and began construction, obviously believing that the presence of a structure would strengthen their case. When we asked the court to stop the construction - to prevent exactly the situation we now face some four years later - it was, in fact, the O'Flahertys who assured the court they would simply tear down anything they built if they lost the case. The court, holding them to this promise, let them proceed with construction. Now they are pleading ignorance, poverty, and victimization while blaming everyone else for their calculated but, ultimately, misguided decision.

They chose to build a second house beside the two-family house they own and lived in; they chose to ignore the concerns of their immediate abutters on three sides; they chose to ignore the fact that the abutters filed an appeal that was likely to succeed; and they chose to argue before a court judge that they should be allowed to complete the construction of the house. Put simply, the present situation is of the O'Flahertys' own making.

It also should be made clear that their new proposal to change the zoning laws to cover for this strategic miscalculation will have an impact beyond Melville Avenue. Last year, when the BRA put forward an amendment on the O'Flahertys' behalf, the attempt failed because of the very strong opposition in Dorchester and the other neighborhoods the measure would have affected - particularly Roxbury and Brighton. What the new amendment proposes is simply singling out Dorchester to enlarge a loophole for as-of-right development. At the same time that Roslindale has no as-of-right development, and the BRA has tightened as-of-right development in Jamaica Plain and other neighborhoods, why should we in Dorchester be forced to put up with less protection because of the arrogance of one resident developer?

What we are asking for is a conclusion to this case, which has dragged on for nearly five years. This has occurred in large part because the O'Flahertys have had access to unlimited, free legal services from the best law firms in the country. While we recognize the discomfort many people may feel about the remedy ordered by the court, our patience and willingness to explore alternative solutions has been exhausted. Our door has always been open for discussion, and, certainly, our participation in BRA-sponsored mediation is evidence of that willingness. But resolution can only occur when compromise is the active ingredient. Rather than working to resolve the issues, the O'Flahertys and their supporters have chosen to continue on a destructive path of misinformation and character assassination.

We have been reluctant to argue our case in the press, preferring instead to allow this case to take its course through the courts. However, TV interviews stating that the plaintiffs want to destroy a local family, or have lists of people who can and can't stay in the neighborhood, force us to clarify the record. We care deeply about the future of our community and this city. We challenged the ZBA's variances out of concern about the zoning approval process because what is at stake here is whether Boston's zoning codes have any meaning whatsoever and whether there is a legitimate review process for zoning variances. To this end we have published court documents and other relevant information at www.melvilleavenuedispute.com.

In the absence of a mediated solution, some would still have us walk away from this case and abandon two court judgments in order to relieve the O'Flahertys from the awkward predicament they created. To do so would send a very clear message to resident developers: If you face opposition, build it anyway and make them force you to take it down.

Yvonne Ruggles and John Young