July '06 letter to State Rep John Keenan
Following is a copy of an email sent to State Rep. John Keenan with
regard to the proposed Salem State baseball field. As in all past
correspondence, I stress the need for a mulit- jurisdictional, multi-city regional review that takes into account all the recent and
proposed projects along the Forest River Watershed, which individual
towns and Conservation Commissions are ill-prepared to do.
Those
hearing our concerns keep bouncing us from one jurisdiction to
another, which ensures a continuation of the status quo: unrelenting
sprawl along the watershed and further encroachment upon the 10% or
so remaining marsh and wetlands. If any among you have any contacts
or influence to spark such a regional review, we encourage you to
participate. John's original text is at
bottom. See how you can
help at the state level.
Danny
*******************
Hi John:
Yes--I have also spoken with Frank in great detail. In the first
meeting, he seemed to many of us to be an unabashed cheerleader for
the project, which shocked the conscience of nearly all present
(except for college personnell). When I spoke with him afterward, he
seemed to us to move from cheerleading to a position that there
wasn't anything they could do. I think your impression is technically
accurate; the problem is that their construction of their own
jurisdiction is among the narrowest I have come across. Barnstable
once spent something like $100,000 to prove that a river was a river.
I realize Salem has no such resources, but neither do members have to
admit publicly that one of their top concerns is to avoid being sued
by developers, as one member said to my wife at the same meeting. It
is true that their decisions might always be actionable (in fact, we
were about to say the same thing)--but it's a two way street--hardly
seems balanced to use their apparent fear of developers as a defense
to angry citizens (who could also sue if we had the money, of
course).
I continue to think that a good lawyer (or a more activist
ConsCom) could invalidate the whole sorry project with an hour's diligent
work. In fact, most people I've spoken with--including most
Councilors--seem to share this defeatist attitude: dead-set against
the project, but powerless to stop it. A really bad chain of events.
Of greater concern is the jurisdictional issue itself; nearly every
concern raised is bound to be outside someone's jurisdiction or
beyond someone's power. Nancy H probably feels I'm out to get the
college, which is absurd. What is really needed is some sort of cross-jurisdictional review--and perhaps a moratorium--by MEPA, the EPA,
DEP--whoever--that takes into account all the recent and new construction along the watershed, from the 40B project downstream to
the dorms to the baseball field to the parking lots to the tennis
courts to the YMCA, new housing and on and on--all additional building in the aftermath of a Salem Sound study warning against
further land use impacts along the Forest River. I've already done
the research and sent along maps showing that the Forest River Marsh
complex is almost 90% destroyed from its historical reach; to those
who would call it alarmist I would say that it is far too late to be
sounding this alarm.
Besides, we have a pivotal moment, with all we now know about climate change, to actually
make a difference about building practices along these extremely sensitive areas. Instead,
Tierney's office refers us to the Mayor, who refers us to the
ConsCom, who refers us to the legislature, saying that the college is
exempt from any additional restrictions they might impose (if they
were ever inclined to do so). In the meantime, projects are approved
in isolation, one by one, as if in a vacuum, until....? I think the
rest goes without saying. This fight has already cost us thousands of
dollars: Julia and I can ill afford to "take our eye off the ball"
for even a moment, given the nature of our work. But we have been so
wrapped up in this struggle that we have had to forego a major spring
fundraiser and put several other important revenue projects on the
back burner.
It's an insidious, nationwide phenomenon, and I don't
see many solutions on the horizon. This is inevitable, and developers
count on it to exhaust opposition over the long haul. The more
spurious the assertion, the more energy it saps from the
opposition:
a WalMart in Talahasse actually contended that building a new
superstore would reduce traffic. What the hell, their consultants get
paid either way.... On that note, I'll stop rambling and go check my
pumps. It looks like it may be another long night. Thanks for
listening/reading. Danny
Dan:
I've been following this through Frank in the ConCom who seems to be
on top of it. I've also talked with Mike Blier on the Con Com and he
says they're going to get an independent review also. Seems that
they're trying to review as thoroughly as possible within their
jurisdiction. I'll keep you posted with updates I get.
Hope all else is well.
John
Hi John:
Thanks again for stopping by. I sent a note but it was returned, so I
re-sent to the office address. We're staying above water for now--a
great accomplishment. As far as SSC, I'm not sure where the permit
stands at this point. ...
Dan
Top
|
