Here we are with the Governor championing the environmental Green agenda and they pull a stunt like this and suggest that a massive development on the shores of Spot pond, which serves Stoneham and metropolitan Boston as a reservoir under the MWRA, in such a cavalier manner it makes you wonder why and to what end. Just another potential reason for far reaching ethics reform or are we getting a peak under the lid of a new agenda by an administration fighting for a legislative identity. In my book this goes into the same column as Marion Walsh ala Doug Rubin, Sal DiMasi ala David Morales, Jim Aloisi Ala Jim Aloisi, and now Ian Bowles ala ????. How many missteps can administration suffer before it has an effect? In an election cycle starting now the Governor on a whole is way ahead of the field but with an administration throwing road blocks like this in his way how long will it last? This may go down as the biggest collapse since the Red Sox were up by 15 and lost it to the Yanks. I have to wonder when this ship turns into the Titanic
As Usual Just my Opinion
Sorry Ed, but I’ve driven by that site any number of times. It’s an old hospital complex, currently unused. That letter makes it seem like the apartments are going to chew up the Fells reservation, cut down trees and turn them into a corporate park. Guess what? It already is a corporate park — just an unused one right now.
<
p>About time they did something with it.
Could someone post photos?
The 600 folks who entered public comment and the state both feel the deal would have to be changed if a full environmental review were held, but the developer is getting out of it by paying for the traffic modifications himself. Bowles wants the project reviewed and modified, but says his hands are tied.
<
p>Bowles in fact, is calling for legislation that would require any project that seriously affects traffic to call for an environmental review, regardless of who pays for the traffic abatement. So I’m not sure I agree with the sentiment of the anti Patrick line of reasoning, but there should be a review of this project.
Does he support it?
<
p>Charley, you are an idiot my good man.
<
p>They are going to turn that site into a huge residential commercial development.
<
p>See Charley, that’s the problem with you out-of-towners.
<
p>You don’t get it. You don’t understand the purpose of the Fells and the parkways and the ponds. all designed and landscaped in the olden days so the urban masses can still have something.
<
p>This is bad precedent.
<
p>The hospital was a non-profit built many years ago and was an exception. This would be much much larger.
<
p>’Duh, I drive by there all the time. It’s just a hospital.’
<
p>Deval should reconsider this.
Yes a development of the kind being proposed is not out of character for the site certainly the Hospital and the out buildings of which their were many at one time was not out of character.
<
p>What the issue is the environmental impact of the new construction and the proposed new use will have on the land and the adjoining pond. Just because something was there and used does not mean that by today’s standards the same should exist. Those grounds were built almost a century ago when it was a sanatorium for TB cases and post WWI veterans.
<
p>Wouldn’t it be appropriate to one see if the proposed site would increase run off into the pond from the new expanded parking lots remember runoff does not go into the sewer system and down to Deer Island for treatment. It runs into the pond that you may be drinking in Medford so Hydrocarbons, anti freeze and other leaking fluids from cars and trucks, or maybe other contaminants yet unidentified. How about the traffic that the site will bring to the area what impact will they have on the surrounding conservation area, how about the air quality any number of issues could be raised and without a study and follow up report to confirm or refute the concerns no one knows not even Ian Bowles. Now ad in the impact to the aquifer by creating the huge impervious surface and what is the ramifications will it change flows will it cause flooding? I certainly do not know, but the study could have looked at this and would have either identified an issue to be corrected or would have given it a clean bill of health.
<
p>Lets not forget the issue of setting a precedent for removing a safe guard on a project that we may desperately need on a future project. I can see another less ethical developer running into land court and say hey it’s not a level playing field the decision is punitive toward me they already waived it on another project. Trust me coming from Woburn we lose those cases locally by the bucket full.
<
p>Yes should the site be developed yes can it support the proposal it should but I am not certain of that fact and the report would make certain.
<
p>So has Ian stepped into an issue for what appears to be saving a Developer money and the potential of avoiding mitigating a potential flaw, Yes he has. All from an Administration that has tried to appear to be an environmentally conscious group again the issue is as the other examples illustrate that they continue to contradict and to confuse the groups that have supported them in the past this is not how you continue to build coalitions and support for future elections.
<
p>Those are my points and I think Deval needs to be concerned with staying true to his commitments even when there are hard choices t be made.
<
p>Last Point Charley it is not lost on me that Stoneham is one of those communities struggling with the economy as a matter of fact their struggle has been well documented for almost 8 years as their tax base has been dramatically effected by first run away Health costs and then by a down turn in the economy. A major portion of the town is tied up by the State controlled Fells/North reservations and has cost the town in many ways. Maybe what needs to occur is not just quick development but the state as a whole developing a plan for what the value is to our water supply our green space and how this affects a community and it’s ability to raise revenue. Maybe this is where for the greater good a new formula for aid to City and Towns with large tracks of protected land needs additional help from the Commonwealth for having this burden. Maybe the current formula of payments is to small or to tilt away from them to continue to support them. This would take leadership and be an issue that would show a “change” in how things were done. Instead we get the same old same old roll over and die for development when need be and it leaves everyone with a bad taste.
<
p>As Usual Just my opinion
The Middlesex Fells occupies close to 1/3 of the land within the boundaries of Stoneham. Our police and fire departments are responsible for providing public safety services in the Fells, including search and rescue should anyone get lost or injured. In return the town received about $15,000 in PILOT (Payment in lieu of taxes) money from the state last year. I’d have to check the 2010 Cherry Sheets to see if that figure is going to hold up next year.
<
p>Several years ago the town assessor went back through the old records to identify the private properties that were seized during the creation of the Fells. In his estimate, the town would be receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in property taxes if the land had remained in private hands.
<
p>The commercial portion of the project simply involves remodeling the existing hospital and office buildings. The new residential construction would take place behind the existing structures and down a hill. I’m not an environmental engineer but my best guess would be that additional runoff into Spot Pond would be minimal.
<
p>There are legitimate concerns about the traffic which the developer has tried to address, including scaling back on the size of the residential portion, reducing the number of bedrooms each unit would contain, and offering to pay for the road upgrades. I’m also not a traffic engineer, so I can’t say whether these changes are sufficient.
<
p>This debate has been going on for 9 years now. There has to be some alternative to continuing to allow the old hospital to sit vacant. Maybe the developer should sell it to an Indian tribe that wants to build a casino.
which is what folks want
<
p>Which is why it makes sense to have those engineers take a look. It seem like a traffic engineer did do a study and found that the development would greatly impact traffic, which is as good a reason as any to call in an environmental engineer.
http://images.google.com/imgre…
<
p>This is the page about the sites past use and the proposal
<
p>You may also want to look at the Home page to see more of the history of the area and the groups working with DCR in improving and restoring the area Many wonderful projects ahve been completed by volunteers in conjucntion with the MDC and now DCR in this are
<
p>http://www.fells.org/index.cfm
<
p>Again I would suggest that the issue is the Administration staying true to the values they indicate are theirs or have they sent conflicting signals on almost every major issue? This would appear to me to be just that once again. This is not a comment on the value of a developments or the need.
<
p>As Usual Just my Opinion
but I did like the idea of reducing the lanes on the parkway from 4 to 2 in principle. I hate the idea of people using park roads for through traffic (and yes, that includes those in Boston including Storrow Drive). The intersection revisions actually looked pretty good from a traffic safety, traffic calming, bicyclist, and pedestrian perspective.
<
p>Again, I don’t know the details, so there may very well be legitimate objections. However, the fells.org site only seemed to reference the concern that commuters will instead drive through neighborhoods to get to where they’re going instead of on this parkway. If that’s their concern, I’m not impressed. That’s a political decision to maintain support from the region’s NIMBY folks (don’t want the development, but also don’t want more traffic in their neighborhood or traffic delays when going where they’re going, even if those changes are better for the park).
<
p>It doesn’t sound like it was handled right, that’s for sure. It would be nice if the new development that was replacing the old development was “constrained” by the old development — no more pavement than the old one, no more square footage than the old one, no more runoff than the old one, no more total building mass than the old one, etc.
<
p>If the new development maintained or reduced the negative impacts of the 100-ish year old development, then the park would be improved without using the public’s dime.
My issue and suggestion is simple if we bend or flex the rules here where does it stop and does it stop. These rules were put into place to curb of abuses and to set the rules dor Development and for the residents to know what will and will not happen. My beef witht he administration is the boast that they are the environmental kings and here when the going is tough they look for a Parachute. This in my book is not sending the same signal to residents that here are the rules every one plays by in this game and it takes the High Ground away from Governor Patrick when he goes out and says “I understand”… “we are going to do things different”…”it’s your commonwealth”. To my knowledge I have not seen a corporation vote more then once in Massachusetts, if we are to win another election with a candidate who is willing to stand up and say I am different how can we? Who will listen this subject is not about a hospital or a developer it is about how we govern by rules. What Developer is not looking and saying hey see its what you pay for and who you know not the rules. Those are for those 9-5 dopes who live in the small house around the corner and don’t know how it is really done.
<
p>Deval Patrick has promised to bring change and a different way to do things and I have looked him in the eyes on several occasions and seen that commitment yet his administration has undermined his words far to often and they then undermine the work of every grass roots organizer who put their rep on the line to support not an administration but a man Deval Patrick we voted for him and his values and ideals. I want to see his administration reflect that even in tough decisions. Selling out was the old way not the new way at least I hope so. Looking ahead who is willing to stick their neck out as far as they did 4 years ago and talk to people and tell them it will be differant when we have headlines and stories like this just thrown into our faces.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
that there should have been environmental review. There absolutely should have been, and the developer “volunteering” to pay for the traffic reorganization required due to the development should never preclude the review.
<
p>
<
p>As for NIMBY, I’m a systems guy. It’s my Ph D work, and it connects very closely to my political interests related to climate change in general, and transportation and energy in particular. I see how large global goods often require small local bads, and how NIMBY effectively pushes all sacrifices to those who have the least political power. That forces this liberal to choose between maximizing global good and minimizing local harm to those who are least fortunate already. Neither result is good, and NIMBY is often the cause. So, to be sure, sometimes the NIMBYs are right in the big picture, and they’re often right on specific details. But NIMBY also results in horribly inefficient energy and transportation networks for which we all suffer substantially. It also results in a lack of smart growth or planning, a suppressed growth of green energy options, and so forth.
<
p>To be sure, every NIMBY issue should be carefully considered, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the idea that the neighborhood doesn’t and shouldn’t have veto power — how the project impacts the town, the region, the state, the nation, in fact the world should also be given due consideration, even if the anti-s end up being few and quite loud and the pro-s are distributed over a large area and are relatively unaware of the project in the first place.
with your thesis that in some cases the greater good should apply and JS’s comments about 9 years and something needs to happen is also very true. I have spoken about the State having to look more closely at communities like Stoneham that bear a higher burden to preserve open green space and protection of water resources in an imbalance manner in my opinion. Yet how is following the rules, as set forth, a conflict in any case whether we are discussing the Environment, or traffic, or the weather for that matter. Now lets not jump up and down and suggest that rules are rules never to be broken that is a Childs chant. If in this case a rule is unworkable then file the legislation debate it and change it so everyone knows the rules.
Deval at a Burlington meeting, just prior to the election, commented he thought government needed to be streamlined that we had to many layers and that it was restraining some expansion. So True! I agree with that yet in this case no one has raised the issue that this step is restraining the project or that it would stop the project or substantially change the project, in fact I will state that if the study and report was done as the rules call for and the project was given a clean bill of health then so be it. But as it stands isn’t it human nature to suspect that skipping a step suggests that something is wrong and thus needs to be investigated. Look at the law suit it is to get the study done not stop the development although by the time this works through the courts who knows what will happen and JS may get his Casino and those headaches to boot.
<
p>So respectfully I suggest that it is necessary to follow through to not huddle the lawyers and say hey if I look at this in just this way see its RED not blue and the law only covers blue so we are not covered. That is not a way to build consensus and to put forward a solution to a tough issue. Yet I will go back to my original reason for posting not to stop a development project that I happen to agree can be a real asset to Stoneham and use and area that was used in the past. My beef is with Ian and by extension the administration for not sticking to their guns. We cannot portray them as standing tall for something if they keep looking for the red instead of saying hey it is blue.
<
p>As Usual Just my Opinion
Where will the spread of communism stop? It’s a domino, I tells you!!!! GAAhh1!!
Thank you for the wide-ranging discussion about the proposal for redevelopment of the former Boston Regional Medical Center site in Stoneham. Please bear in mind that the environmental review process in Massachusetts is governed by law and regulation. The facts of this case are complicated, as is the legal authority applied to it. I urge the BMG community not to leap to conclusions, but to read Secretary Bowles’s Advisory Opinion, which lays out the reasons why he had no authority to require an environmental impact report on the Langwood Commons project (i.e., the project, as currently configured, requires no state agency permits – a precondition for state environmental review – and, with the developer paying for traffic improvements, the project will receive no indirect state assistance), and why the particular circumstances of this case are unlikely to happen again (i.e., Secretary Bowles has directed the Department of Conservation and Recreation to revise its regulations to require a permit for any project that results in a “significant increase” in traffic on a DCR parkway, not just those that create a new access point or physically alter an existing curb-cut). You can read it here.
Now I will not claim any (ZERO) legal insight and I really do not want to get into a legal contest here in the post but you seem to be drawing us into that with the link.
<
p>From Layman’s terms
<
p>It would seem that what Secretary Bowles is hanging his hat on it the issue if you pay for the work then you don’t have to do the study. Repeatedly he goes back tot he issue that no public funds were needed. So this would suggest to me that this is a loophole you could sail the USS Ronald Regan through at low tide.
<
p>This also suggests here again I am not privy to the entire documented history but that the Secretary made mention of this fact last year and that ongoing negotiations have been undertaken to avoid triggering this resulting MEPA review. WHY?
<
p>Last point made by Secretary Bowles his words here
<
p>
<
p>Ok first Transparency where did that go? Second why do we have MEPA Secretary Bowles seems able to make the determination based on facts yet unseen by the public?
<
p>I think considering the fact that
<
p>terms such as
and
do suggest and arbitrary and certainly a personal judgment call on the merits of the arguments by the secretary.
<
p>Lastly the plan for the road way change in the DCR vision have existed for some time and money has not been available to move ahead yet we will escrow 1.8 Million to do the piece in front of the developers project some day when we are ready and able to do the rest what happens in the mean time? What happens if the cost goes up and the taxpayers are on the hook for additional funds. What happens if when DCR files the plan and has to undergo MEPA as Secretary Bowles pointed out we find a major issue not suspected in this ruling?
<
p>I think this makes my case on this issue certainly those involved depending on the side they stand on will make a decision on how they feel the process went the developer on one side and some Environmental Groups on the other and a few Neighbors.
<
p>I will reach back one more time to my reason for posting this and you need to read it carefully. My concern and frankly disappointment is a conflict in what is said and what happens no matter how you slant the table and for that the governor will have to answer for as any politician does. I will suggest once again as well that it would appear that this is a misstep by either a member of his administration or by him himself at a time when people are beginning to watch things a little more closely.
<
p>Who wins? Who Losses? Time will tell for now it appears the Developer dodged a study he was unwilling to undertake. And the rules and the position only apply if you can’t find a way to see red instead of blue.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
<
p>
…hardly the “Titanic” for the Patrick administration, as you state. More likely a net positive.
Here is my referance to the Titanic. it says nothing about this issue it is a referance to the series of miss steps and slip ups in judging public positions and opinions. The referance is to the possible out come of future elections and the perception and example that nothing is unsinkable. Just for your information the Titanic was heralded as an unsinkable ship and as it left England and Ireland for New York people felt confident that they were assured of a safe passage like walking on land from one point to another,in fact nothing could be further from the truth as we now know and the referance has been used to demonstrate that even the once believed possible is possible. Which is the other point of my post. You may want to reread and keep my words in the contect and meaning that they were intended.
<
p>
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion!
I took your words out of contect. Wrong referance to miss steps. I should have understood you meant that “even the once believed possible is possible”.
..i will not be voting for Patrick again, ever.