[MassHistPres] S.2053 A Bill to Reduce MHC's review of state projects that have an adverse effect on historic properties in MHC's Inventory

[Marcia Starkey]

One aspect of this issue that is very troubling is the potential  loss of
regional equity.  Other regions of the Commonwealth rely heavily on their
cultural/historical assets as community development incentives and they
could be severely handicapped by the loss of MHC's support when it comes to
archaeological resources.  

 

Marcia Starkey, Greenfield     

 

From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
[mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of Dennis De Witt
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:25 AM
To: MHC MHC listserve
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] S.2053 A Bill to Reduce MHC's review of state
projects that have an adverse effect on historic properties in MHC's
Inventory

 

The story below from the Fall River Herald News of 11/15/11, sounds somewhat
hopeful.

 

Dennis De Witt

 

 

 

Calling Meditech <http://www.meditech.com/> 's proposed $65 million project
"a game-changer for the region," Fall River's economic development chief
called on state officials, including Gov. Deval Patrick, to extend or
reconvene the state legislative session in order to remove obstacles the
company says have been created by the Massachusetts Historical Commission
<http://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/> .

"I respectfully request that the Patrick administration become actively
engaged in this project," Kenneth Fiola Jr., of the Fall River Office of
Economic Development, wrote in an email Tuesday afternoon to Gregory
Bialecki, secretary of the Executive Office of Housing and Community
Development <http://www.mass.gov/hed/economic/eohed/dhcd/> .

One week after Fiola, the local legislative delegation and others met with
Secretary of State William Galvin, who chairs the MHC, and  commission
leaders, he said Meditech's plan to build a new SouthCoast facility is "at
an impasse."

"Meditech is not interested in the compromise" with MHC, said Fiola, the
company's designated spokesman. The two sides held a meeting last week, at
which the MHC issued a requirement that 5 to 7 of 21 acres set aside for the
project be machine stripped in order to protect archaeologically sensitive
land and possible Indian graves of historic significance.

"Meditech could not agree to MHC's required machine stripping of the impact
area required by MHC," wrote Fiola, referencing a June 24 letter from MHC
Executive Director Brona Simon that Meditech said caused them to believe the
entire 21 acres must be dug up.

They transferred another 117 acres for open space within Freetown's
Riverfront Business Park facing the Taunton River.

In the letter to Bialecki, also a member of the MHC, Fiola referenced Senate
Bill 2053, which seeks to eliminate the commission's authority over land not
listed on the historic register. That measure would clear the way for the
Meditech project to move forward.

The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Michael Rodrigues, has been referred to
the Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight. Rodrigues
said he hopes the bill will get a hearing soon.

With the legislative session scheduled to end Wednesday, Fiola asked the
Patrick administration to support the proposed bill, help reconvene the
session for a vote on the bill, initiate emergency legislation exempting
Meditech from MHC review and revisit language in the Massachusetts
Environmental Protection Act that could allow the project to proceed without
MHC oversight.

He said Meditech has "acknowledged that they will abide by state law as it
pertains to any unmarked graves or the unearthing of any bones during
construction."

Bialecki's office did not respond to a request for comment, and Galvin's
spokesman said he had not been informed about Fiola's request to the Patrick
administration.

Rodrigues, who's been encouraging local citizens to email legislators, also
could not be reached.

State Rep. Kevin Aguiar, among the legislators at last week's meeting, put
the onus on Meditech for the impasse.

"There's been a reasonable compromise on this issue, in my opinion, and
Meditech is choosing not to take it," Aguiar said.

"The Meditech folks, for whatever reason, do not want to go with what most
people see as a reasonable compromise."

Aguiar, said he was not speaking for his colleagues but believes they may
line up the same way, making legislation as a difficult route.

"We need cooler heads to prevail," he said, "rather than drawing lines in
the sand."

Fiola said the prospect of 800 to 1,000 college-level jobs and Fall River's
unemployment rate, which is nearly double the state average, justifies the
request.

Meanwhile, Green Futures, a local environmental advocacy group, announced
that a Bridgewater State University college student has created a petition
<http://www.change.org/petitions/senator-michael-rodrigues-do-not-endanger-a
rchaeological-sites-in-massachusetts>  "to help stop Senate Bill 2053."

Fiola also said he believes Richard Sullivan Jr., state secretary of the
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, committed an error in
his assignment of the MEPA permit and asked Gov. Patrick to review that.
That was because the MEPA permit allowed MHC oversight authority over land
that it is not listed on the state historic register, Fiola said.

Most of his points for taking extraordinary steps to put the Meditech
project on track have been well publicized. In addition to the preserved,
donated land and building a 186,000 square-foot facility, they included the
prospects of jobs paying in the range of $30,000 to $40,000 and the project
becoming a "foundation" for the region.

It would also help recruitment of companies to the nearby 300-acre
SouthCoast Life Science and Technology Park at Fall River, also accessed
from new Route 24 ramps, and create more jobs.

Fiola's FROED office is also strongly involved with that project, which lost
steam during a yearlong effort to convert biopark land for a  destination
casino. The state's decision at the end of last year's legislative session
not to legalize gaming, coupled with a citizen lawsuit, caused Mayor Will
Flanagan to pull the casino land sale off the table.

 

 

 

 

 

On Nov 3, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Anne Louro wrote:





Attached is the link to the New Bedford Standard Times Editorial on this
subject:

 

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111103/OPINION/1
11030314

 

Anne Louro

From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
[mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of mfenollosa
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 12:00 PM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] S.2053 A Bill to Reduce MHC's review of state
projects that have an adverse effect on historic properties in MHC's
Inventory

 

Let me add to Michael's post (he hit "send" about a minute before I was
going to!)  with apologies for the length of this post...

The bill is being fast-tracked through the Massachusetts Senate and will
severely restrict the Massachusetts Historical Commission's  regulatory
oversight on historic properties throughout the Commonwealth.  As the law
(Mass General Laws Chapter 9, Section 27C) now reads, MHC has the ability to
comment, and cause the applicable state agency or private developer to
eliminate, minimize or mitigate, adverse effects on any projects, if the
project is listed on the State Register of Historic Places or, most
importantly, if the property is on any town Inventory of historic assets.
The State Register only includes National Register properties and those in
local historic districts, so many, many other locally-deemed significant
properties would NOT be reviewed if this legislation were to go into effect.
In Lexington, for example, we have some 1300 properties on our Inventory;
only a tiny fraction are on the National Register. The vast majority are
located outside our local historic districts.  And as we all know, it is not
easy or quick to set up local historic districts or get properties listed on
the National Register.  Worse yet, the proposed legislation appears to have
retroactive effect -- forever!

So, for example,under the proposed law, the MHC would not be able to
comment, as it has done countless times, when a utility wanted to enlarge or
reconfigure a steeple on  an inventoried church to accommodate a cell tower.
Or a state agency wanted to expand a road that would destroy the setting of
a historic property.  Or a private developer wanted to build a housing
project that would result in the demolition of historic resources after any
applicable demo delay period had run.  Or a civilian airport wanted to tear
down a hangar that had historic significance and could be repurposed.  The
MHC has not always been effective in getting the results we would prefer,
but they have been important allies when it's "only" local preservationists
trying to stop big projects.  State involvement brings credibility to local
action.

The legislation is the result of an unhappy developer on the south shore
whose project was "derailed" by MHC review.  The developer wanted to build a
large industrial facility on a property on PreservationMass's 10 Most
Endangered list a couple of years ago -- Peace Haven, a 600-acre site along
the Taunton River in Freetown, just north of Fall River's city boundary,
whose historic significance dates back to King Philip's War in 1675. Its
archeological resources from this time and earlier are amazing and
documented at the State Archives. Though no historic buildings are still
remaining, the incredible landscape, cultural and archeological history make
this a rare treasure in that part of the state.  An article from yesterday's
Herald describes the situation (from the developer's point of view):
http://www.heraldnews.com/newsnow/x780401655/Rodrigues-bill-targeting-Histor
ical-Commission-clears-another-hurdle 

As noted in the Herald article, the legislation has been referred to the
state Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight, chaired by
Lexington's Senator Ken Donnelly. And there appears to be no opposition to
its passage. 

So please consider contacting Senator Donnelly and/or your own legislators,
and ask interested colleagues to do so as well, to voice your objections to
this proposed bill.  You can do it by
e-mail:http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J25 will get you to the
committee, http://www.malegislature.gov/will get you to a list of everyone
else in the legislature, and clicking on the name will give you the e-mail
address.  It would be helpful to note projects where the MHC has made a
difference in preserving historic assets through their participation and
oversight.

The text of the proposed bill is set forth below, with my red highlighting.
Many thanks for anything you can do to help!

Best,

Marilyn Fenollosa


Bill S.2053


An Act relative to certain projects referred to the Massachusetts historical
commission for consultation


By Mr. Rodrigues, a petition (subject to Joint Rule 12) (accompanied by
bill, Senate, No. ) of Michael J. Rodrigues, David B. Sullivan, Steven
Howitt, Marc R. Pacheco and other members of the General Court for
legislation relative to certain projects referred to the Massachusetts
historical commission for consultation. Tourism, Arts and Cultural
Development.


SECTION 1. The first paragraph of section 27C of chapter 9 of the General
Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby amended by
striking out the fourth sentence and inserting in place thereof the
following 3 sentences:- If a determination of adverse effect has been made
on any property, site or structure listed in the state register of historic
places, the state body undertaking the project or the private entity
proposing the project shall adopt all prudent and feasible means to
eliminate, minimize or mitigate the adverse effects. If a determination of
adverse effect has been made on any property, site or structure not listed
in the state register of historic places, the state body undertaking the
project or the private entity proposing the project shall consider, but need
not adopt, the commission's recommendations to eliminate, minimize or
mitigate any adverse effects the commission has determined to exist, if such
recommendations are issued within 30 days of such determination. Under no
circumstances shall such a state body or private entity be required to adopt
the commission's recommendations relative to a site or structure not listed
in the state register of historic places. 

SECTION 2. This act shall apply to projects referred to the Massachusetts
historical commission, pursuant to section 27C of chapter 9 of the General
Laws, on and after the effective date of this act. This act shall apply to
such projects referred to said commission, pursuant to said section 27C of
said chapter 9, before the effective date of this act if: (i) either a
determination relative to adverse effect or the results of consultation or
consideration following a determination of adverse effect is pending on the
effective date of this act; (ii) said commission has issued recommendations
to the state body undertaking the project or the private entity proposing
the project but such recommendations have not yet been adopted on the
effective date of this act; or (iii) projects for which a copy of an
environmental notification form prepared pursuant to section 62A of chapter
30 is provided to the Massachusetts historical commission, or for which a
project notification form is filed with said commission, pursuant to section
27C of chapter 9 of the General Laws. 



On 11/3/2011 11:47 AM, Steinitz, Michael (SEC) wrote:

Dear MassHistPres Listserve Members:

 

I would like to call you attention to Senate 2053.  Go to
http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S02053  to read it.

 

Basically, the bill would reduce the Massachusetts Historical Commission's
review of state projects that have an adverse effect on historic properties
(buildings, districts and sites) that are in MHC's Inventory but not yet
listed in the State Register of Historic Places, by permitting the project
proponent to ignore MHC's recommendations for preservation or mitigation.
The bill would also be retroactive to any previous state project reviews
that MHC has done in the past.

 

It is presently in the Joint Committee on State Administration and
Regulatory Oversight.  Letters, email and phone calls in opposition to the
bill should be directed to the two chairmen and your local state senator and
rep if they are committee members.  Go to
http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J25  for contact information
for the chairmen and committee members.

 

According to the Fall River Herald News, the Committee might schedule a
hearing for this bill as early as next week, since the formal Legislative
session will end in mid-November.

 

 

Michael Steinitz

Director

Preservation Planning Division

Massachusetts Historical Commission

220 Morrissey Blvd

Boston MA 02125

617-727-8470

617-727-5128 (fax)

michael.steinitz at state.ma.us







******************************
For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE
LIST.
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
********************************







No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1834 / Virus Database: 2092/4592 - Release Date: 11/02/11

******************************
For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE
LIST.
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
********************************

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20111121/6682af1c/attachment-0001.htm>