Turnpike board member Mihos, who originally voted against the sale at the Turnpike’s meeting on April 10, said he was not fully satisfied with the guarded way the Turnpike has handled the land sale so far. Mihos was upset that he had only learned of the terms of the sale the night before the board voted to approve it.

“I have absolute concerns that we are not complying with the letter of the law in not having public meetings and not having minutes,” he said. “And unless this deal is in black-and-white, I still have questions about what will be done with this parcel.”

He said that the confidentiality of the Turnpike’s dealings was the primary cause of consternation amongst city and state officials.

“This administration refuses to hold open meetings,” he said, “and we get to see no documents until they are to be voted upon. It causes these blow-ups that don’t have to happen when numerous state, city and federal officials have concerns about what we’re doing in executive sessions.”

“Were talking about public policy, not a slam-bam-thank-you-ma’am deal with Harvard,” he added. “None of these concerns were being addressed. I found that troubling.”

Stone was unavailable for comment yesterday. And Director of the Allston Initiative Kathy Spiegelman declined to comment on how the deal would impact Harvard’s long-term interest in the land.

Even though the deal’s provisions significantly encumber the land in the short term, Berkeley said that Harvard’s intentions likely extend well into the long term.

“Harvard has been here for 300 years and is probably thinking 200 years ahead,” he said.

—Staff writer Alex L. Pasternack can be reached at apastern@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Lauren A.E. Schuker can be reached at schuker@fas.harvard.edu.