The Fernald Center sits on roughly 200 acres of land, much of it prime real estate within the City of Waltham.
At a meeting this past Wednesday night of a subcommittee of a city/state panel that is planning for the reuse of the land, an administration official speculated that the land could be worth as much as $2 million per acre. The city has reportedly been using a figure of $1 million per acre in its own estimates. Whatever the figure, the entire campus is potentially a very valuable asset to the state. You can do the math. A conservative estimate of the value of the entire campus might be $200 million.
Needless to say, that's a number that is going to catch the attention of a former corporate executive such as Governor Patrick. Admittedly, it's only a one-time revenue shot, but an infusion of $200 million in cash could go a long way toward easing the state's budget crisis, if only for one year.
In getting back to Patrick's comment to Mayor McCarthy, it's important to note that McCarthy sits on the city/state panel, known as the Fernald Reuse Committee, that is deliberating on the future uses for the land.
Many people in Waltham believe the land should rightfully be handed over to the city, which has gotten no tax benefits out of the land for the past 122 years even though the city has supported the campus and the facility for all those years within its borders. McCarthy has stated that she would like to preserve as much of the land as possible from over-development and does not want to cover it with housing, which would create additional traffic problems on already overcrowded Trapelo Road.
But McCarthy is a realist. She knows the state is not about to hand the land over to the city for free. The city's hope is that the state will charge the city something less than $1 million an acre for whatever land the city gets out of the deal. But the numbers haven't been finalized. McCarthy has no idea yet what the city might have to pay.
McCarthy declined in a phone call with me this morning to characterize what Patrick may have meant in his comment to her that the Fernald reuse plan must have an “economic component.” So, I'll suggest this interpretation for her: Gov. Patrick was saying to her, in effect: 'You're not getting this land for free. You better find uses for the land that will make money that can then be turned over to the state. Or else we won't approve your reuse plan.' In other words, there's no “economic component” in preserving the land for open space, for instance. That won't cut it.
McCarthy is on record as saying she wants to preserve housing on the Fernald campus for all of the current residents of the Fernald Center. The problem is there's no “economic component” to that either as far as Governor Patrick is concerned. That's why the administration wants to close the facility. It's not a money-maker for the state.
And therein lies Governor Patrick's $200 million conflict of interest. On the one hand, the governor and his administration have a responsibility to provide the best possible care for persons with mental retardation. On the other hand, Patrick sees big dollars in shunting those people aside in the Fernald land deal. We've now seen clearly which side he has come down on.
I don’t think this is the correct term. The Commonwealth as an entity might have competing claims on what is the best use of the land, but calling this Gov. Patrick’s conflict of interest makes it sound like he has a personal financial stake in how this is resolved or that he is favoring a campaign contributer, neither of which you have demonstrated. As Governor he has to make decisions that are best for the entire state. Even if you don’t like it he has apparently determined that ensuring economic gains out of this land is the best overall decision for the state. Besides, if it does improve the budget situation there will possibly more money down the road for the services you advocate.
Patrick stated that some of the 200 acres needs to have “an economic component”. So instead you are crying that you can’t have the long meadow off of Trapelo Road anymore so you clearly see what side Patrick is on?
Unless Patrick is going to personally reap some sort of benefit from his decisions, there is no conflict of interest.
<
p>Patrick is charged with making decisions that are in the best interests of the Commonwealth. People can agree or disagree with those decisions, but claiming that he has a conflict of interest based on the information you’ve provided here is simply incorrect.
I am not speaking of Gov. Patrick as an individual, but as the head of his administration. In that sense, I think there is a classic conflict of interest here. The administration has two competing interests: money and the welfare of people under its care. It really is his administration’s conflict. But Patrick is the head of his administraton. And he has personally indicated that his administration wants substantial money out of this deal.
the state of Massachusetts (NOT Governor Patrick) has a “conflict of interest” in ensuring that the sale of Fernand’s property has a positive economic impact on the state’s finances. What a horrifying concept! I guess that’s a fair thing to say, but it’s right up there with critiquing someone trying to make a profit off the sale of their house.
<
p>Your argument baffles me and your ‘it’s a metaphor’ argument is sort of desperate, is a deeply flawed metaphor and seems like a revision of your original argument, since that one fell flat.
<
p>And what good argument is there that the Governor shouldn’t be looking out for the best interests of this state? That’s his job. The fact of the matter is we can close Fernand, use the profits from that to make improvements and additions to existing facilities that aren’t on such valuable and vast lands, and sell he ancient facility with a horrible past… which, by the way, could literally mean hundreds of thousands for Waltham’s budget every single year in new property taxes, if we don’t go all NIMBY. Waltham stands a lot to gain if Fernand is well developed… something Waltham could probably make happen if it works with the Governor instead of against him, since the state can issue an RFP and have a great deal of control over what’s built there.
<
p>FYI: I highly doubt whatever sale is made at Fernand would go toward the budget deficit. Honestly, while I’m not an expert, I do believe there are state laws that prevent the sale of state property going toward the general budgets… that law certainly exists for municipalities. Further, it would be horrible PR for the entire state if a $200 million dollar facility was sold and nothing constructive and lasting was done with that money.
<
p>If Fernand is sold, its profits will probably go toward improving and adding infrastructure at other state-run hospitals so as to better serve our patients, while streamlining the system. Rarely is anything ever perfect — and the Fernand situation never has been — but Governor Patrick is right about Fernand. The smart thing to do is sell it.
“Conflict of interest” has specific meaning that suggests the potential for personal enrichment. Certainly you understand the distinction and could have expressed yourself more clearly.
<
p>Regulations around conflict of interest are designed to ensure that one person does not personally materially benefit from decisions that are made professionally. There is no “classic conflict of interest here” at all. Why are you clinging to this ridiculous notion?
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or an organization has an interest that compromises their responsibilities.
<
p>I understand Ryan’s point that the Patrick administration has a valid interest in making a positive impact on the state’s finances. The problem is that interest is in direct competition with the administration’s responsibility to provide for continued care for the residents of Fernald. The governor has come out and stated it. He wants to make money off this land. The residents have to go.
<
p>Unfortunately, many of Ryan’s other comments show a lack of knowledge of Fernald’s history and of the proposals that Fernald advocates have made to reduce the size of the existing facility. We are not against the development of the vast majority of the land. Why can’t an accomodation be made for the current 140 residents there? Why is no compromise possible?
<
p>As for Fernald’s history, yes, conditions were very bad at Fernald 40 years ago. But it was because of legal actions brought by the families of the current residents that those conditions were greatly improved. By the 1990s, Fernald had become a world class institution that provided care that was second to none anywhere in the world, in the assessment of U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro.
You refer to the “administration’s responsiblity to provide for the continued care for the residents of Fernald”. Fair enough, but doesn’t the administration have just as much responsibility to be a good steward of the Commonwealth’s overall financial situation? Maybe there’s a way to balance the claims somewhere in here, but the Governor is responsible for the entire state, including many valid claims by various interests on limited state resources. He cannot and should not be expected to be accountable just to Fernald.
A “conflict of interest” means that the stated reason for an action is actually a “cover” for another reason, and that there is a gain [to an agenda, party, principal, or financial] that differs from the public or stated reason.
<
p>Typically, the term “conflict of interest” is used when the person, corporation, or agent making decisions stands to benefit in some way that differs from the ostensible reason for the decision.
<
p>For this reason, as an example, no attorney can represent both a husband and a wife in a divorce. The reason is not to prevent the attorney from pocketing money, but rather, from representing two conflicting perspectives and interests.
<
p>It might make sense for a neutral, such as an arbitrator from the American Arbitration Association or a federal judge to again evaluate the competing interests.
<
p>From my perspective, however, the most reasonable outcome seems to be a smaller campus, protecting the elderly vulnerable residents for their lifetime, and a nuetral decision maker determining the best use [including potentially, sale] of the remaining land and buildings.
<
p>An “all or nothing” approach is rarely optimal.
<
p>Further, the financing for development, currently, is just not there in most cases.
<
p>If there is a developer in the closet “panting” for this land, and someone knows about it – by all means drop a dime to my old pal Howie Carr.
You can say all you want about access to 128, sounds very high…is there any data to back that up?
You can say all you want about access to 128, sounds very high…is there any data to back that up?
$1 mill seems high but $600 to 700K isn’t out of the question in Waltham, for commercial.
I think it is a conflict of interest, and would define the conflict this way:
<
p>1. On the one side, the governor, with low approval numbers coming into an election cycle, and a budget that has gored everyone’s ox, would be able to restore a few services, although the timing — Fernald is presently not to close for almost a year, and then has to be sold in parts, because there are things the state wants to keep there — probably doesn’t help him in FY2010 and may not do much for FY2011.
<
p>2. On the other side, this is land that the citizens set aside for people with intellectual disability. Even the state’s plan is not to close the entire campus but to keep the skilled nursing home and some group homes, as well as the Shriver Center and a DDS administration office. In addition, the town, have supported the campus for so long, has some reasonable claim.
<
p>So it’s get the governor elected versus do the right and legal thing by a group of aging and fragile people with intellectual disability for whom Fernald has been home for an average of almost 50 years each.
<
p>The precendents are very mixed. Many large state hospitals have been sold off without regard to the original will of the citizens or the localities. In some cases, such as the Medfield state hospital, there have been accomodations for a few of the former residents with mental illness, after a long fight.
<
p>As usual when Fernald numbers are involved, there are a lot of exaggerations on the table. Although not far from route 128, the present value of the real estate is likely depressed, and there may not be 200 saleable acres, what with wetlands and retained services. It costs something to get the old and unused or underused buildings full of asbestos out of the way, and something more to modernize the heating systems of the ones that are being kept. It costs a lot more than has been admitted to move the residents against their will — this is why both houses of the legislature asked for a feasibility study before closure. As one former DDS official explains it, “Moving the last person out costs $10,000,000.”
<
p>Disclosure: I am employed by COFAR, a statewide coalition that is leading the fight to keep developmental centers open as the safety net of the treatment system for people with intellectual disability.
Finally….it has taken more than 6 years but the Governor has finally let it slip that it is and always has been all about the land value and nothing more.
<
p>I hope their speeches that their intentions are only what is best for these individuals will end.
<
p>With the scam of “best interest” gone, (and putting aside the moral issues for the moment) maybe now there can be a real look at the money involved, what the true costs of operations are, the real cost of closing the center, and what the real costs are out in the community for providing the services that are essential to these people lives.
<
p>A good start would be for the Governor to keep a promise to a Fernald guardian at a “Listening Tour” in Pembroke to include Fernald in the feasibility study. Fernald was dropped from the list of centers to be included in the feasibility study. I am not sure of the status of the whole feasibility study. I thought I read somewhere that the entire provision had been dropped from the budget and I have also read that the provision made it without Fernald. If anyone can answer that question I would appreciate it.
<
p>
provides for a feasibility study prior to the closing of the Monson, Glavin, and Templeton Developmental Centers; but Fernald is not included. Fernald was originally included in both the House and Senate versions of the budget bill, but was taken out by Senator Brewer in the House/Senate Conference Committee.
provides for a feasibility study prior to the closing of the Monson, Glavin, and Templeton Developmental Centers; but Fernald is not included. Fernald was originally included in both the House and Senate versions of the budget bill, but was taken out by Senator Brewer in the House/Senate Conference Committee.
Dave from Harvard:
<
p>Thank you for clarifying the status of the feasibility study.
<
p>The Governor promised the guardian that Fernald will be included, it would be done first and would take about 2 months. So much for that promise.
<
p>
“So much for that promise?”
<
p>You’re laying something Senator Brewer did on Governor Patrick, right after someone informed you Senator Brewer did it? Contrary to whatever notions you have, we live with a system of Government where the Governor has no control over what happens in the legislature. They’re co-equal branches of Government, not co-existing. Lame.
I was well aware of Senator Brewer’s actions long before this post and your condescending comments! There is no need to enlighten me with your “lame” explanation of the government.
<
p>However, there is one flaw in your argument…..originally, the Governor ordered the closure of Fernald and other developmental centers. Notwithstanding all the discussions in the legislature, feasibility studies, committee hearings, etc., etc., etc…..Fernald is still closing. So you tell me…..who is in control. Despite your co-existence comments, it would appear its the Governor.
<
p>My comment was sarcastic…imagine a politician that makes a promise that is not kept. Isn’t that the true definition of a politician?
did in fact, promise that he would commission a feasability study before closing Fernald. If he reneges, then he has failed to uphold the promise, notwithstanding any action taken by Senator Brewer. This is, Ryan, a Governor who promised “no more business as usual.” We expect him to do the right thing and that is to do what he promised. He needs to tell his vendor department head at the DDS to sharpen her pencils and show how she’s going to save money. Otherwise, this is just another vendor-driven shell-game, one worthy of the Republicans.
Do you even read the morning paper? It’s savagely ironic that the same day you wrote this post about how awful it would be for the state to sell off most or all the Fernald property to try to plug its massive deficit, this story appeared on page 1 of the Globe, above the fold:
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>You say that there are 140 residents living currently at the Fernald Center. Why should they enjoy a beautiful, grassy campus of 200 acres, while other disabled citizens like Jessica Fiasconaro, to whom the state as JUST AS MUCH RESPONSIBILITY as it has to the Fernald residents, go completely without the help they need?
<
p>You’ve got to think bigger. The residents of the Fernald are not the only disabled people in Massachusetts who are hurting right now and need services from the state.
<
p>The responsible thing to do would be sell the entire Fernald campus to a big developer, making as much profit for the state as possible, and then develop it as densely as possible with commercial buildings, offices and high-rise apartments and condominiums, so as to bring as much property tax revenue as possible to the City of Waltham.
<
p>The profits from the sale of the land to the state, according to your own figures, would be between a quarter and half of a billion dollars. These funds could be used to buy and build 10-acre campus somewhere where land is much cheaper than it is inside 128 (maybe out in Franklin or Worcester counties?) that would be more than adequate for 140 people to live well on, with literally hundreds of millions left over to restore cuts in other vital areas of human services.
<
p>By saying the Fernald center should be kept open at all, you’re saying that keeping the people who live there on its campus is inherently more important than restoring deep, biting cuts that have had to be made in other areas of MA’s social services system with money from selling the property. That’s silly.
<
p>And before you start saying how heartless I am to suggest that 140 people could ever live healthfully and happily on less than 10 acres, let me introduce you to The Clarendon, a brand-new luxury condominium complex in Back Bay that I pass every day on my way to work:
<
p>http://www.bostonredevelopment…
<
p>Area: 1.1 acres
<
p>Residential Units: 400
<
p>Prices for units: $690k-$3.3 million
<
p>Are the multi-million dollar condo buyers living in depravity?
I read Jessica’s story. It is a travesty.
<
p>Your comments infer that those of us who oppose Fernalds closure don’t care about our other disabled citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have been fighting for funding to be restored to all programs for the disabled. All disabled citizens should be treated as individuals each with unique needs.
<
p>The article you referenced mentioned that “mainstreaming” did not work for Jessica and she was better served in the larger facility. We are fighting for funding for individuals, like Jessica and Fernald residents (even though their challenges are different), who are best served by the larger facilities. We are also fighting for individuals who have chosen to live out in the community and have the ability to excell in that environment. The administration is trying to cram these people into “one size fits all” settings and per the article, it clearly doesn’t.
<
p>Unfortunately, you bought into the myth that Fernald is draining the budget and is the reason that there are waiting lists, lack of services, etc. That closing Fernald is the miracle fix…guess again. Fernald IS closing, the life-long residents are being thrown out (its costing the state $45 million to throw them out) and guess what…..everyone budget still got cut. I’m not sure who will be blamed going forward. How about blaming the administration. I read another article today that the administration has awarded a $5 million contract to a European country for a system to track the tax stamps on cigarettes. This system might eliminate the “possibility” of losing $2 million. So they are spending $5 million to MAYBE prevent losing $2 million dollars and rather than awarding the contract to an American company to stimulate our economy they send the money overseas. I wonder why we have budget cuts.
<
p>As to your solution, Fernald guardians have suggested, only to fall on deaf ears, that 140 people do not need 200 acreas and that the campus should be reduced, as you suggest, leaving the majority of the campus available for the state to do whatever it wants with it. And for the record, there already are, for the time being, developmental centers where the land is cheaper in Shrewsbury, Wrentham, Templeton, Monson and Danvers. All are slated for closure.
<
p>
I never claimed, nor do I believe, that the Fernald is the reason for the waiting lists and lack of services that disabled citizens face.
<
p>The reality is that in a tough economy and tough budget climate, we need to use ALL of state resources as effectively as possible. 200 acres of prime real estate owned by the state just a few miles from Boston is being underutilized. The state could sell of 85% of it, keep the current 140 residents living on the remainder, and use that money to help other people desperately in need of services. It’s a question of allocating our resources fairly.
<
p>I also have no doubt that however many hundreds of millions the state could make from selling most or all of the Fernald’s campus would barely dent this year’s deficit. But I believe every little bit helps, because behind all those numbers on a state spreadsheet are real people with real lives, like Jessica in the Globe article.
<
p>The cigarette story sounds weird. Do you happen to have a link for it?
<
p>I applaud all of those who work to make sure that the need of all disabled people are met. I just think that in a time when there isn’t even enough to go around to begin with, be can’t be playing favorites.
<
p>Also, I feel like perhaps I am missing some critical context to this whole debate. It sounds like so many people on BMG who have a special interest in social services have a major bone to pick with the Governor, totally independent of the Fernald issue.
<
p>Why?
<
p>I know nothing about you and haven’t bothered to research your past participation here, but I do respectfully suggest that you get your information on these issues from somewhere other than BMG.
I’ve always believed that there are several sides to every story. I was curious to hear the perspective of some of the posters here who sound like they have been very active in the efforts to stop the Fernald closure.
<
p>I’m kind of a localnews-a-holic, and I haven’t heard of any other high-profile spats between HHS advocates and the administration. At least, not that I can remember offhand.
<
p>The advice to do some digging is a good one, but I’d still like to hear the perspectives of the posters here.
Fernald families have LONG sought to reduce the Fernald footprint to a postage stamp. And one fact of which you may or may not be aware is the fact that as a result of the 1970’s consent decree, these residents are entitled (that’s right, entitled) to the same as or better level of care for the rest of their lives. Most of them need a centralized service delivery medical model, which cannot be duplicated in your luxury condominium example.
<
p>And moving profoundly disabled people away from their families and friends into group homes that cost as much or more…isn’t the answer.
<
p>Unfortunately, Governor Patrick’s vendor department heads want to privatize, privatize,privatize – which is where I see the conflict of interest. And the savings? Not so much. The group home rents that this administration has negotiated are sweetheart deals for the vendors.
You mention that the Fernald residents are entitled to the same or better care for the rest of their lives. I think that’s fantastic- a great safeguard. But why, pray tell, would they be unable to get the same quality of or better care at a new 10-acre facility in say, Wilbraham?
<
p>While we’re at it, what is the centralized service delivery medical model, and why is it not applicable in high-rise buildings? Is this CSDM model never used in hospitals like MGH or BI or the Brigham, all of which feature many high-rise buildings as part of their campuses?
<
p>You write that having profoundly disabled people live in group homes “isn’t the answer.” Having zero background in social work or medicine, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But if group homes are not the answer, why do you want people to continue living at the Fernald? More broadly, if group homes are not the best way to deliver the services that this population needs, what is?
<
p>Re: “privatize, privatize, privatize” and “sweetheart deals”- Any evidence to back this up? A link perhaps? I’d love to simply take your word for it, but as we know, that hasn’t worked so well in the past.
<
p>Also, a little of topic, but just curious. Who are you leaning towards supporting for Governor in 2010?
It will be anybody but. I’d like to see another Democrat step up. There is a hair breadth of difference between Mr. Patrick and the Republicans when it comes to human services. This was the worst vote of my life. This was supposed to be “not business as usual.” Fool me once…really. Aloisi?
<
p>A centralized service delivery model is found in a variety of places – most notably college campuses (residential, educational, athletics)hospitals, assisted living facilities to name a few. ICFs-MR are federally certified medical and residential service delivery models for profoundly disabled people. For instance – my sister weighed 65 lbs on a good day, was oxygen dependent, never walked or talked with spastic quadripalegia. She was cognitively about 3-4 years old. She wasn’t going to be getting a job at McD’s or living in a group home. She needed 24 hr nursing care, and a variety of therapies, including physical therapy, respiratory therapy, neuro/psych services (seizures), adaptive technologies, etc. These were all at Fernald. When you have this level of disability, waiting two months for an appointment is more than a little problematic.
<
p>So…let me ask you this? Why push a high rise building model, instead of a small “village” that could easily be sustained at Fernald? A high rise that is also miles and miles away from family and friends. Do you not understand that these people have feelings, and that most of the parents and siblings either elderly or middle-aged, which would make it enormously difficult for them to see their loved ones. The postage stamp we’ve asked for is very little land, and the chapel. I don’t think it’s too much to ask, but the “all or nothing” crowd around Deval Patrick has refused.
<
p>So yeah – I can back it up what I’ve written about sweetheart deals and privatization. Actually, Dave from Hvad wrote a great piece here. http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/d… The Governor has in fact, appointed two vendors to run departments in EOHHS. It’s no surprise he’s hellbent on privatizing. And as for “taking my word for anything” and how “that didn’t work so well in the past…” please give some context for that? My veracity has been doubted by you based on what interaction?
It is great to see this many comments on this topic.
<
p>Apologies for the tone of my previous posts. Been fighting this for so long tone has become almost a reflect.
<
p>My “tone” does not promote discussion which is the whole point.
No need for apologies, IMHO.