The Planning Board public hearing on Colarusso's proposal to construct a paved, two-lane road through South Bay went on for more than two hours. It was standing room only at the Central Fire Station, and it was hard to determine if the audience was made up of more opponents or proponents of the project. Among those who spoke, however, those opposed outnumbered those in support 20 to 8. One speaker encouraged compromise, suggesting, "Maybe we just need to work on this . . . to do something that benefits all of us." Another urged the Planning Board to let them build the bridge. (She was told the hearing was about the haul road not the bridge.)
The Zoom recording of the hearing is now available here.
Lance Wheeler's video of the hearing is available here.
At the end of the meeting, the board voted to end the hearing for oral comments but to extend the period for submitting written comments for ten business days, until the end of the business day on Tuesday, October 10. Comments should be submitted to the members of the Planning Board, whose names and email addresses can be found here.
My tally (matching that of another audience member who made her own count) was 20 against, 5 in favor, 3 mixed or indecipherable.
ReplyDeleteIn the previous post on this issue there was mention in the comments about "need[ing] to work together to find a solution." And now, right on schedule, the predictable call for more "compromise."
ReplyDeleteSeriously? This is foolishness to anyone who remembers the grand compromise and solution already struck years ago in the LWRP, a process that lasted from 2008 to 2011.
Moreover, what seemed most distasteful at the time is now a lifeline! Backing the LWRP's compromise makes more sense today than ever before.
So unless someone is planning to confiscate the Colarusso property through eminent domain (a childish gambit which has already failed once), then it's sheer madness to ignore the LWRP's interlocking laws and policies *which already address this specific issue.*
Do people know any of this? Is anyone telling the newcomers? If not, then why not? (This last question is asked in earnest.)
It always sounds so reasonable when some newcomer to an issue cries out for a new round of compromise. But if it's common knowledge that we all already agreed upon a compromise - as you all have in the city's adoption of the LWRP - then the refrain for more compromise gets very annoying. No one who took part in the LWRP should tolerate it.
Instead, like competitors in the Roman Colosseum now at the mercy of well-meaning but uninformed Planning Board members, you gauge success by something as arbitrary as audience input!
As an alternative to sheepish helplessness, why not use your collective knowledge to inform the Planning Board about the 2011 LWRP compromise which was explicitly designed to achieve two things:
1) remove gravel trucks from city streets while at the same time;
2) limit South Bay truck traffic to and from the waterfront without being seen as attempting to regulate a private enterprise.
I'll bet that most people reading this were a part of the process that created the entire new body of Local Laws under the LWRP umbrella. Why don't you speak up to defend the compromise that's already in the books?
With more bad alternatives now than then, don't you appreciate what we already achieved?
Thank you so much for sharing it.
ReplyDelete