Re: Columbus Center
. . . Again, what is the ultimate goal here? Cap and vent all highways with massive scrubbing stations?
Two goals are underway.
Goal 1 (tunnelize Boston?s entire turnpike) was decided in 1962, by society at large, in public.
Goal 2 (vent the pollution from below into communities above) was decided in 2003, by MTA, in secret.
. . . What about the traffic on congested thoroughfares like Boylston Street, Atlantic Avenue, and Mass Ave?
The solution there is cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels. On open-air thoroughfares, vent filtration isn't practical because there is no tunnel to house it.
. . . And what do with the Prudential Center? Copley Place?
MTA?s air pollution exhaust vents have been operating continuously at Prudential Center since 1963, at Hancock Garage since 1969, and at Copley Place since 1984. Because those 3 vents have been harming public health for years, MTA should remediate them even before it remediates the Columbus Center vents.
. . . city air is dirty - it's a worldwide phenomena completely and totally unrelated to the construction on a small patch of downtown Boston at Columbus Center. . .
No, not at all. Air pollution may be common, but MTA?s decision is unheard of: capture, concentrate, and exhaust air pollution from tunnels below into existing communities above, in high-speed, continuous doses. MTA?s decision is an intrinsic, fundamental part of the design that MTA encouraged and approved for Columbus Center.
. . . this whole "UFP angle" has been undertaken by neighbors who will have their views blocked by a shiny new tower next door . . .
That?s untrue. Over 13 years, not one of the people now concerned about this issue were ever concerned about future views. All the public comment records prove this.
. . . These people are far removed from "environmentalists".
That?s also untrue. While most of those concerned about air pollution represent a cross section of average people, a few are professionally involved in environmental issues.
What you?re really saying is this: average citizens are not entitled to have public health concerns unless they become environmentalists first. Telling people that they have to get certified if they want to care about their health is profoundly elitist.
. . . These are the same people that populate all the same meetings to stall all progressive growth and development in our city.
That?s also untrue. The vast majority of the people who are most concerned with MTA?s air pollution have virtually no history at public meetings on Columbus Center. It wouldn?t matter anyway, though, because MTA and CWCC never publicly admitted to the exhust vents, and instead just designed and approved them in secret.
What you call ?progressive growth? (pollution without remediation) is actually regressive growth (private profit over public health). In your arithmetic, developers? personal profit should outweigh public health and well being.
When you speak of ?our? city you?re saying the city belongs only to you and those like you who want it changed the way that you want it changed, and you?re saying that the city doesn?t belong at all to anyone who feels differently than you do. That?s quite elitist.
You can't just close the highways, roads, and train lines, shutter air rights developments, construct giant scrubbing stations and put a moratorium on all construction and development near any roadway.
Response - Closing transportation corridors is not possible, but cleansing the air vents is possible, and building away from pollution sources is already being done successfully in California.
Side note - The development industry commonly uses the tactic you used above: lump possible ideas among impossible ones in order to hide the credible ones from further consideration. If you don?t believe me, attend one of the industry-sponsored classes where they teach ways to deceive the public, the government, and the media.
