[MassHistPres] MassHistPres Digest, Vol 71, Issue 10

Fri Jan 13 11:42:31 EST 2012

As someone who has been a resident of Massachusetts for only a half-dozen years, I don't have the background or depth of knowledge of most who participate on our list.  I do echo many of the comments and concerns, including the near-term activities Steve outlined.  

To these may I add two longer-term changes that would help our efforts in lasting ways:

- De-politicizing the MHC and creating much greater transparency--Perhaps "de-politicizing" a state agency is inherently impossible; reducing the influence and increasing transparency certainly are.

- Increasing outreach at all levels--Building a better understanding of why preservation matters in our communities and doing so in a way that helps communicate that this is something that benefits everyone.

While this last one is often-discussed, it's worth noting, again, that any preservation effort succeeds over the longer term only if it has a broad base of support.  As we're seeing again, laws and regulations supported by a small minority are insufficient since, once the tide turns, the same laws and regulations that made initial preservation efforts possible can be overturned and the previous gains rent asunder.

Best regards--

Lee

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Lee Wright  |  Marlborough  |  469-233-7712

The History List (www.TheHistoryList.com) -- Now in beta

On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Stephen Jerome wrote:

> The proposed legislation, and its orchestrated media campaign (as
> evidenced in Dennis DeWitt's article), is the greatest challenge
> currently facing the Massachusetts preservation movement, and it will
> require our personality and socially driven "country club" movement to
> put aside our comfort zones and cliques to forge new alliances and
> band together to defeat. Unless we can work together and orchestrate
> strategies now, including of course, media and political outreach, the
> legislation will surely pass. Governor Patrick has proven to be no
> friend to preservation, which is not his fault, but ours' as he has
> surrounded himself with developers and anti-preservationists.
> 
> There will be templates from other states that can shape strategies.
> And alerting the Nation to the shenanigans in the Bay State, one of
> the country's most historic states may shame Beacon Hill into doing
> right, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because
> economically, historic preservation - not least as it relates to
> cultural tourism -is a driving force in our Commonwealth economy.
> 
> Steve Jerome
> Charlestown
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM,  <masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu> wrote:
>> Send MassHistPres mailing list submissions to
>>        masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>> 
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>        http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>        masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu
>> 
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>        masshistpres-owner at cs.umb.edu
>> 
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of MassHistPres digest..."
>> 
>> 
>> Today's Topics:
>> 
>>   1. Chesterfield Center-Cell Phone Tower (Dee Cinner)
>>   2. Chesterfield Center Cell Phone tower (Dee Cinner)
>>   3. Re: Chesterfield Center Cell Phone tower (heartwood restoration)
>>   4. the Meditech controversy (Dennis De Witt)
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:39:40 -0500
>> From: Dee Cinner <deecinner at wildblue.net>
>> Subject: [MassHistPres] Chesterfield Center-Cell Phone Tower
>> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>> Message-ID:
>>        <CAN4F_-eo_zT9GdCx+VPtcOgmz-XYtpvK3m3hwE+q9HLXh-nCQA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>> 
>> Hello all,
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20120112/56f491ae/attachment-0001.htm>
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:23:31 -0500
>> From: Dee Cinner <deecinner at wildblue.net>
>> Subject: [MassHistPres] Chesterfield Center Cell Phone tower
>> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>> Message-ID:
>>        <CAN4F_-e3NYhzZ6h6e6pLDfiYCJJJGC3T6iBVNXa7Xy3_64c3_w at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>> 
>> Hello all,
>> Thank you all for your replies and most excellent suggestions.
>> 
>> I am sorry but my email provider today changed the entire format.  For
>> instance Marcia Starkey's email disappeared before I could read it, and I
>> can't seem to reply to other messages.  Hence the new message.
>> 
>> To answer some of your questions and give an update, I offer the following:
>> 
>> Chesterfield has around 880 registered voters with the result that most of
>> the town boards are staffed by volunteers.  Requests for information can
>> take a month or more to be met even between boards.
>> 
>> The Planning Board meets once a month.  Only (Jan 11) last night did they
>> schedule a site visit for the proposed Bagg Road cell tower site.  The
>> Historical Commission has already made 2 site visits, the last of which was
>> on Dec. 11.
>> 
>> One concern at this point is that I was told there was a provision in the
>> federal law stipulating that if the Planning Board doesn't act within a
>> specified amount of time, then the permit is automatically granted.
>> 
>> I spoke with the lawyer for ATT today and requested several documents to be
>> placed in 2 locations in town in public places including the Radio
>> Frequency reports.  The Planning Board does not even have a copy.  She was
>> most cooperative.
>> 
>> Only 20 minutes after my first posting on this site I received a phone call
>> from MHC saying that they would review the View Shed Reports (balloon test)
>> of November.  This is after being turned down only the week before.  I
>> guess we do have a voice when we work together.
>> 
>> Thank you all for your most helpful suggestions.
>> 
>> Dee Cinner
>> Chesterfield Historical Commission
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20120112/a7feaf63/attachment-0001.htm>
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:59:07 -0500
>> From: "heartwood restoration" <jade at heartwoodrestoration.com>
>> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Chesterfield Center Cell Phone tower
>> To: "Dee Cinner" <deecinner at wildblue.net>, <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
>> Message-ID: <D415BCE3402B499C876573F990C468DC at jadePC>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>> 
>> how very uplifting, thanks for sharing, dee....you deserve credit for your perseverence....a true squeaky wheel!
>> 
>> i hear chesterfield is gorges, it that true?!
>> 
>> jade l. mortimer
>> heartwood window restoration
>> 
>> From: Dee Cinner
>>  To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>>  Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 3:23 PM
>>  Subject: [MassHistPres] Chesterfield Center Cell Phone tower
>> 
>> 
>>  Hello all,
>>  Thank you all for your replies and most excellent suggestions.
>> 
>> 
>>  I am sorry but my email provider today changed the entire format.  For instance Marcia Starkey's email disappeared before I could read it, and I can't seem to reply to other messages.  Hence the new message.
>> 
>> 
>>  To answer some of your questions and give an update, I offer the following:
>> 
>> 
>>  Chesterfield has around 880 registered voters with the result that most of the town boards are staffed by volunteers.  Requests for information can take a month or more to be met even between boards.
>> 
>> 
>>  The Planning Board meets once a month.  Only (Jan 11) last night did they schedule a site visit for the proposed Bagg Road cell tower site.  The Historical Commission has already made 2 site visits, the last of which was on Dec. 11.
>> 
>> 
>>  One concern at this point is that I was told there was a provision in the federal law stipulating that if the Planning Board doesn't act within a specified amount of time, then the permit is automatically granted.
>> 
>> 
>>  I spoke with the lawyer for ATT today and requested several documents to be placed in 2 locations in town in public places including the Radio Frequency reports.  The Planning Board does not even have a copy.  She was most cooperative.
>> 
>> 
>>  Only 20 minutes after my first posting on this site I received a phone call from MHC saying that they would review the View Shed Reports (balloon test) of November.  This is after being turned down only the week before.  I guess we do have a voice when we work together.
>> 
>> 
>>  Thank you all for your most helpful suggestions.
>> 
>> 
>>  Dee Cinner
>>  Chesterfield Historical Commission
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>>  ******************************
>>  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/20120112/d593660b/attachment-0001.htm>
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:37:44 -0500
>> From: Dennis De Witt <djd184 at verizon.net>
>> Subject: [MassHistPres] the Meditech controversy
>> To: MHC MHC listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
>> Message-ID: <B2052FC0-812E-4842-8C85-F0146BD9A8AE at verizon.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>> 
>> There is an extraordinarily long article in the current on-line version of CommonWealth Magazine which uses the Meditech controversy to air every possible complaint of the development community about the MHC impact review process.  Needless to say no comments were gathered from the advocates and defenders of those historic neighborhoods, buildings, and archaeological sites where potential development effects have been mitigated.  The article is far too long to quote in full but those interested can find the whole thing at:
>> 
>> http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/News-and-Features/Features/2012/Winter/003-Historical-roadblock.aspx
>> 
>> Curiously, pared down by about 50%(!) the remaining parts of the article treating the specific Meditech issue are somewhat more balanced.  It makes it clear that the dispute is, at this point, immediately resolvable and thus, whatever went before, is now being artificially sustained.  But left unresolved the issue may be a convenient tool to attempt to force thru a piece of legislation greatly favored by development interests.  The full one-sided, article also feels like part of such a plan.
>> 
>> Dennis De Witt
>> Brookline
>> 
>> PEACE SUMMITS ARE preceded by battles. And as far as Beacon Hill turf battles go, the one that necessitated the November sit-down inside Secretary of State William Galvin?s offices was a doozy. The spat featured months of political gamesmanship and strident accusations. Among the highlights: State Sen. Michael Rodrigues threatening to legislatively gut one of Galvin?s agencies; one of Galvin?s top deputies curtly declining to answer any and all inquiries from Fall River-area legislators; and Ken Fiola, director of Fall River?s economic development office, calling Galvin?s employees liars in the Boston Globe.
>> 
>> The blow-up centered around an office park development on the Freetown-Fall River border, and which hurdles that the park?s developer, the Westwood-based medical software firm Medi?tech, should or shouldn?t have to clear before getting Galvin?s blessing to break ground. Local and state officials strongly backed the proposed 186,000-square-foot office building, which would have brought 800 new technology sector jobs to a region struggling with the highest unemployment rate in the state. The project passed its state environmental review in August, but it couldn?t proceed without the say-so of the Massachusetts Historical Com?mission, which answers to Galvin. Frus?tration with the commission escalated into an increasingly heated war of words, culminating in the State House peace summit.
>> 
>> The two sides spent an hour and a half talking inside Galvin?s wood-paneled offices on the third floor of the State House. They all made happy sounds when they emerged. ?It went very well,? says Rep. Patricia Had?dad, the powerful legislator brokering the talks. ?There were some good exchanges.? Looking back at the meeting, Galvin says he expected that the standoff with Medi?tech would be resolved within days.
>> 
>> Yet no resolution came. Instead, Fiola fired off a letter to the state?s economic development secretary a week after the summit, saying the office project was dead, and Medi?tech was likely to expand out of state unless the Legisla?ture passed a law exempting the Freetown office development from Galvin?s oversight. It was a bitter end to a project that had been touted as a game-changer for the economically depressed Fall River region just months before.
>> 
>> . . .  it?s unclear whether Mass. Historical des?erves all the blame for the Meditech fiasco. Common?Wealth reviewed hundreds of pages of government documents related to the deal as well as email correspondence bet?ween most of the major players and found ambiguity on both sides. Meditech?s abrupt decision to walk away from  the deal remains unexplained. The firm?s refusal to comment, except through a Fall River city official, is bizarre.
>> 
>> Haddad is stumped. ?Both sides very much think they?ve done everything the other side wants them to do, and we can?t find the words to bring them to the same place,? she says. ?The gap isn?t that wide, but it?s deeply held. For somebody who talks for a living, I?m at a loss.?
>> 
>> . . . Mass. Historical doesn?t have a formal veto over development projects. The agency can only convene what it calls a consultation process?a series of meetings aimed at avoiding or mitigating negative effects on historic properties. In practice, though, this review has a hard edge to it. State agencies aren?t allowed to issue any permits until Mass. Historical has completed its consultation, so a disagreement with Mass. Historical can put a development project on hold indefinitely. It?s rare that a dispute with Mass. Historical buries a development project altogether. But development professionals in the private and public sectors routinely complain about projects getting stuck in the agency?s bureaucracy.
>> 
>> . . . Last April, James Karam shot an email to Patrick?s chief of staff, Mo Cowan. Karam told Cowan the software firm Meditech, which has a large presence around the Route 128 belt, was in the early stages of securing permits for a major expansion on industrially zoned land along the Taunton River in Freeport just outside Fall River. It would be the company?s second facility in the South Coast. Karam hoped that someone in Patrick?s office would place a call to the company, thanking them for their in-state expansion and offering to help steer them through the permitting process.
>> 
>> By July, Karam was emailing Cowan for a different reason. Meditech was cruising through its state environmental review, but had run into a roadblock at Mass. Histor?ical. Meditech?s CEO had ?a tough situation on his hand with Mass. Historical and Sec. Galvin,? Karam wrote. ?Unfortunately they move at their own speed and by their own rules.? Shortly after, Patrick emailed Bialecki. ?Greg,? the governor wrote, ?Can you help get this expansion project in Fall River back on track??
>> 
>> . . .  without Mass. Historical?s approval, Medi?tech couldn?t get the state permits it needed to begin work on its office building. On the same day that it completed its MEPA review, Meditech?s vice chairman, Lawrence Polimeno, called the governor?s office and said the standoff with Mass. Historical would force Meditech?s expansion out of state, according to an email summarizing the discussion. Despite that call, the governor?s office issued a press release trumpeting the expansion; two days later, Meditech issued its own press release, saying it was abandoning the project.. . . .
>> 
>> . . .  Fiola, the Fall River economic development director, says Meditech is scouting for a new home out of state, but the company has given him until the start of the construction season to try to solve the Mass. Historical standoff. ?It?s working in our favor that it?s winter and they can?t build right now,? he says.
>> 
>> The 140-acre Meditech property is tucked off Route 24 in Freetown near a huge Stop & Shop distribution facility. Dirt bikers ride the trails winding through the land, which offers spectacular views of the Taunton River. Old, abandoned stone walls and two tiny cemeteries from the 1800s are in the area, overgrown with vegetation.
>> 
>> The standoff between Meditech and Mass. Historical originally centered on how much digging Meditech had to do before Mass. Historical would let the office building construction begin. Meditech?s Freetown site was an active Wampanoag gathering place for thousands of years. Mass. Historic believes Meditech?s construction crews would likely un?earth Wampanoag gathering place, including unmarked graves.
>> 
>> That?s as much as the two sides agree on, though. When Meditech publicly abandoned the project in September, the company said Mass. Historical wanted it to excavate and sift through 21 acres of land looking for Wampanoag artifacts?a prohibitively expensive exercise. Fiola maintains this was an oral instruction from the historical commission. ?How do you expect anyone to invest $65 million without having that in writing?? Fiola asks. He alleges Mass. Historical went into hiding, dodging Meditech?s calls from June until October, when state Sen. Michael Rodrigues filed a bill to drastically reduce the agency?s reach.
>> 
>> Galvin counters that there?s ?no factual basis? for the claim that Mass. Historical ordered Meditech to dig up 21 acres worth of land. ?Acreage was never the big issue,? he insists, accusing Meditech?s backers of ?spewing misinformation.?
>> 
>> Incredibly, there?s nothing in the public record that confirms either side?s claim. A June letter from Mass. Historical speaks obliquely about ?additional locational testing,? while an August letter references ?topsoil stripping for limited portions of the project construction impact area.? In late October, Rodrigues and several other Fall River area legislators asked Simon to put the extent of the required work in writing. Galvin?s office rebuffed this inquiry. In a November letter to Bialecki, Galvin says Mass. Historical recommended excavating and sifting ?less than one acre.? That letter was the first time a hard excavation number appears in any public record created by Galvin or Mass. Historical. But Meditech?s frequent complaints about Mass. Historical don?t specifically mention the 21-acre demand, either. That detail only began circulating after the company pulled the plug on the Freetown project. Galvin now says the absence of any mention of the 21-acre excavation dem
>>  and while the project was still alive is ?pretty persuasive? evidence that it wasn?t a real demand.
>> 
>> It?s not clear whether Mass. Historical has retreated from an unreasonable demand, or whether the demand never existed. What is clear is that both sides now agree that the scope of the digging for Wampanoag artifacts on the Meditech site would be quick and limited, and would cost $97,000. Everybody at the November meeting in Galvin?s office agreed to this. Fiola, acting on Meditech?s behalf, committed to applying for a Mass. Historical excavation permit within two days.
>> 
>> Instead, however, Meditech?s archaeological consultant emailed Mass. Historical, saying Meditech had instructed the firm ?not to send the proposal until further notice.? The reversal surprised several meeting attendees, who thought they were trying to sort out a spat over excavation acreage. They?re now dealing with a turf war.
>> 
>> According to Fiola, who has been acting as Meditech?s proxy in negotiations with Galvin, Meditech has now dug in. ?Mass. Historical?s behavior to date has been disingenuous and untruthful, and Meditech didn?t feel comfortable moving forward with them,? he says. Meditech?s own archaeological consultant believes there are Wampanoag artifacts on the Freetown parcel, but the company is insisting that because its site isn?t on the State Register, Mass. Historical has no oversight. The company, Fiola says, is awaiting the passage of legislation that would strictly limit Mass. Historical?s authority to State Register properties. Rodrigues, author of this legislation and a previously outspoken Meditech backer, did not return several calls for comment. Nor did Meditech executives. . . .
>> 
>> 
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20120112/8e1fd850/attachment.htm>
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MassHistPres mailing list
>> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
>> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>> 
>> 
>> End of MassHistPres Digest, Vol 71, Issue 10
>> ********************************************
> ******************************
> 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/20120113/34f02522/attachment-0001.htm>