Below is the text of a comment made by a new BMGer Coe. He or she is, I believe, a member of the Friends of the Fells, a plaintiff in the suit to stop the development.
The comment summarizes perfectly the shenanigans that’s going on in the administration regarding this development.
It makes the “anti-leave-some-for-the-fish-policy” stink even more like rotten fish.
Bake’s environmental/conservation ad writes itself. And will destroy Deval’s credibility.
Unless of course Deval rides in and saves the day.
In 2006 MEPA (Mass Enviornmental Proetection Agency) issued a ruling on the Fells development project saying that the over-scaled project would cause unacceptable environmental traffic impacts to the Fells Reservation historic parkways and parkland.In that ruling the environmental affairs Secretary stated that the project ”cannot be considered by the MEPA Office to be a ‘reduced build alternative [that] can be built without adversely affecting the character of the parkway’ as was required by the previous state environmental review decision.”
The environmental affairs Secretary ruled that the Developers were required to file a Supplemental Final Impact Report to be subject to MEPA review on a smaller scale project before state permits to allow the project could be considered.
Continues on the flip (–Bob)
To prove that such a smaller project could be built without environmental harm the Secretary’s ruling required quantification of traffic numbers for a reduced build alternative: citing “DCR’s (Department Conservation and Recreation – old M.D.C.)concerns regarding the validity of historical traffic numbers,” the Secretary’s ruling stated in 2006: “The primary impact of concern for this project is traffic. Therefore, an appropriate reduced build alternative will be one whose associated traffic impacts can be reasonably mitigated without adversely affecting the character of the parkways. Necessary and responsive mitigation, in turn, cannot be developed until the project’s traffic impacts have been quantified, which itself requires accurate contemporary baseline information.”
The Fells site developers refused to comply with this ruling and refused to provide any such traffic data for public review, and in September 2009 the environmental affairs Secretary did an about face and rescinded the 2006 ruling requiring that data of traffic level environmental impacts on a new smaller project be reviewed by MEPA and the public prior to permits being granted.
The Secretary simply removed the project from any further environmental review, based solely on the claims made by the developers that the project required no permits because they claimed there would be no need to make alterations to the historic parkways to add capacity for thousands of additional daily traffic trips.
This deal stemmed from a letter dated April 15, 2007, in which the developers notified state officials of a proposed change in the configuration of a revised project plan, consisting of a mere 10% reduction in the proposed new office space to 225,000 square feet, and a mere 10% reduction in the proposed new residential space to 405 dwelling units compared to the prior project scale which had been rejected by the state in 2006. The developers claimed that, with the new configuration, project traffic would be an additional 7,540 daily traffic trips. The developers unilaterally declared that “the project is now in line with historic traffic levels and we feel that a compelling argument can be made that there is now no requirement for [a DCR Access Permit].”
In presenting this unsupported claim, the Developers ignored questions that DCR and the Secretary had raised in prior environmental MEPA reviews about inconsistencies in the developers’ earlier reports of the baseline traffic level for the Site, a matter that the Secretary had required to be addressed in the Supplemental Final Impact Report.
Subsequently, throughout the period between July 3, 2008, and April 21, 2009, the developers negotiated with representatives of DCR and EOEEA in an effort to identify a method for the project to proceed without any further MEPA review. Despite prior doubts raised by DCR staff regarding the accuracy of the developers’ traffic numbers the primary objective of these negotiations was to create a scheme by which the developer could begin project construction immediately without submitting any traffic impact reports for public review. On September 18, 2009, the goal of the developers to begin immediate construction was granted in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by DCR and the developer, an action which is being challenged in Superior Court by citizens, the City of Medford and the Friends of the Middlesex Fells Reservation.
Discuss
12 Comments . Comments are closed.It appears...
...you forgot to list the choices in your poll.
Or Did I?
What is Art, Christopher?
Ha
I nearly spit my coffee over that one.
What is amazing to me
is the dissembling of Tom from Brookline, Charley and their ilk. Coe succintly states what stinks in Denmark and they just throw up red herring after red herring. Listen folks, Deval may be a nice guy but he is a mortal. It is all right to criticize his blatent acts against our park system and our rivers. It is okay to scrutinize his recent personnel actions at the DCR.
You guys may view him as a green governor but it is also okay to view him as a tool of the corporations. He may live deep in the Berkshire woods but he is a man whose ethical framework was partly formed by his Texaco, Coca Cola, American Airlines and Ameriquest days. He used corporate America to make himself rich. That is fine, it is the American Dream, but please, enough of the myth making.
His actions here are unforgiveable. Go out today and look at the foliage and then travel over to Burlington and gaze at a few of the mega-developments that line the route 128. When Deval is done we will have more mega-developments and fewer trees. That is a fact. The scheme illuminated by Coe is an attempt to circumvent environmental review of a project that injures the environment and degrades an historical parkway. It is a government trying its hardest not to do its job.
It is as simple as this, Romney has better environmental street cred than Deval. His administration acted to protect our water sources and our historic parks. Deval Patrick has taken the absolute opposite path.
Charlie Baker
Is alive and well and is now making public appearances. I saw him at the Sutton RTC a couple of weeks ago. Must have drawn 700 people. He is appearing in Auburn at Chuck's Steak House tomorrow night 10/28 at a fundraiser with State Rep. Paul Frost.
wait a second
Aren't you the same billxi who was claiming Mr. Baker was a fake candidate just a few months ago:
Why do you suddenly know his appearance schedule?
Can We Break It
It down to a one sentence question? If I attend tomorrow night, I will ask him andreport back.
My niece
Invited me to Auburn. Christie, Charlie, and Scott all spoke at the Sutton event. Don't you attend democratic events?
that wasn't my question
You spent the last few months vilifying Baker. Why the change of heart?
I'm not a Democrat, so no, I don't attend their events.
Because My State Rep. Paul Frost
Is holding the fundraiser for himself and for Baker. Paul Frost is an excellent source of information on party and state politics. Paul Frost and I have a mutual respect for each other.
Well then, since he is among the living
what is his position on the Fells, the recent river regulations or the politicizing and gutting of DCR? There are people who will vote to protect the environment by leaving their natural candidate (Deval) for one who openly commits to protecting the environment. The shocking actions of Deval Patrick could become significant issues in the upcoming race. Is Baker going to take advantage of this plum issue or is he of the same "screw the environment" camp?
Look just above your post please?
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Thu 9 Feb 5:21 PM