A few years back a brand new, very lovely lodge and large garage were built at the Saugus entrance to Breakheart Reservation.. Since then a small building boom has taken place at the entrance. In addition to the lodge, a maple syrup house was built, a concert pavilion was constructed on the lawn of the lodge, and a new ranger house is being built as this is being written. (even though the lodge was supposed to be the ranger station). In addition, there is an outdoor exercise area with exercise stations and a children’s playground. One of my friends who sometimes walks through the park with me refers to the entrance as “Disneyland.” Breakheart Reservation is lovely inside, but the area in front of the park is looking a little like a small city. Aren’t state parks like Breakheart Reservation supposed to be about providing a way for people to get away from city life and experience nature?
According to the story in today’s paper, some of the money for improving the state parks may be used to build yet another building that is unnecessary and will make the area look even less like a place of nature. Adding improvements to the the lodge (where educational programs about nature are supposed to take place) that would make it more green makes sense, but building yet another structure at the already crowded entrance to the park does not. The money would be better spent inside the park, for example, on more nature guides or other devices to make it easier for visitors to see nature in the park, rather than in some exhibit outside the park. Or it would be better spent on rejuvenating other parks in the state park system.
This proposed project is a perfect example of our taxpayer dollars being spent unwisely. It also is an example of the DCR apparently forgetting what its mission is or should be.
Utilization of taxmoney in buildings and houses is not a good option..It should be utilized in making a park..
<
p>gaurav
<
p>Massachusetts Drug Treatment
I don’t know the Saugus area at all, but I feel I don’t have enough information to know whether your critical perspective is valid.
<
p>I know there was a state grant program for park improvements a few years ago that focused on improving amenities at waterfront parks that were walking or bicycling distance from low-income neighborhoods. I assume the logic is that low-income kids need recreation opportunities close to home. Is it possible that some background like that might explain why there would be new facilities for active recreation and education at a park where you would personally prefer a focus on passive recreation?
<
p>How many other parks serve this neighborhood or region, are they accessible without an automobile, and what kinds of recreational opportunities do they offer?
<
p>Also, is the money for the improvements sought by local officials? If so, what is their logic? If it is funded by grants, there is something of a difference than being funded by legislative earmarks. (Although a legislator is not likely to have sought funding unless there was a local request.)
<
p>I’m guessing that new facilities were not a DCR priority, as the old DEM was chronically underfunded for maintenance and staffing.
<
p>Please fill us in on the background, if you know more.
a note…Breakheart Reservation was an MDC Reservation until 2003 when Romney and the Legistature merged it with the former Dept of Environmental Management to create the DCR. The park agencies were and are consistently underfunded. As well due to a rapid turnover of DCR executive level managers since 2003 (3 commissioners alone in 2004/2005)DCR does indeed lack a focus or a mission. But frankly, the MDC and the DEM were always deeply confused as to what their mission was anyway because the upper level of management were never career park people but instead political appointees who thought it would be fun to work in parks! Dukakis was the last governor that was any good for the parks system in MA.
<
p>My guess is that this particular project is the pet of a local state rep or a associated friends group. Why not express your displeasure to them and to the DCR? Gov. Patrick’s appointees are at least willing to listen to the public (and to DCR employees)
<
p>I am also curious what you think “other devices to make it easier to see nature in the park” would be? The majority of people who visit parks like Breakheart within the suburban/urban ring are looking for active reacreation and without exhibits and interpretation nudging them as they use the bathroom they would never look beyond the swimming ponds or bike trail to see the diversity of flora and fauna in the area.