underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Columbus Center
Nice straw-man, Ned! Very helpful for keeping crows away, but not so much for making arguments. I said you talk about the master plan as if it was binding legislation. You said that you didn't say it was, but then proceeded to talk about it LIKE IT WAS BINDING LEGISLATION!Underground,
I do not call the Turnpike Master Plan ?binding legislation? (your words). Nor do I say it has ?statutory authority? (also your words).
But, it is good that people recognize the efficacy of the Plan as the potentially enormous issue that it has been for 8 years, and may yet become.
● The Plan?s purpose is ?to ensure the incorporation of neighborhood issues into the urban planning process? (BRA Director Mark Maloney, 28 June 2000) and ?create corridor-wide urban design principles? (21 December 2000).
● The Mayor and the MTA call it the definitive, ?exhaustive? road map, the ?essential guide to the City and its residents for years to come? and ?critical next steps? (Mayor Menino, 28 June 2000).
● On 20 December 2000, the Boston Redevelopment Authority officially adopted it as the ?framework for the BRA and future Citizens Advisory Committees to review future development proposals as well as a proposed process for air rights development? (BRA Director Mark Maloney, 21 December 2000).
● The 101-page Turnpike Master Plan is the master plan, and it is the only such plan. Having no equivalents or rivals, it carries serious legal weight.
● Over several years, during public meetings and also during slightly more private government meetings, the developers and MTA tried to dismiss the Turnpike Master Plan as nothing more than an optional suggestion. They failed.
If anyone now backs away from this 2-year, 26-member, $1 million master planning effort, then that will make one more item on the growing list of public process transgressions.
But so far, that has not happened.