So, you concede that public debate is a non-starter in terms of planning framework? Then what are you exactly agreeing with her on? The fact of the matter is that we don’t have strong regional planning. I’m not sure what else you expect Kraft to do here? Because we know how this is going to end if he does give Mayor Wu Power of Attorney here. The stadium proposal would be dead and then we will be right back on this board complaining that Boston is too restrictive, etc.
www.bostonglobe.com
Looks like the stadium project got set back. The port area rezoning didn't survive in the compromise bill in the State House.
I was writing a response @kingofsheeba , but I'll have to get back to that in a bit.
Seriously disappointing. I wish some of this process was done publicly so we'd have some idea of what went down.
Everett soccer stadium for Revolution hits legislative roadblock â again - The Boston Globe
The project faces an unclear future after legislative leaders failed to lift the industrial designation from a key property.
Conservation Law Foundation is also responsible for killing the Harbor Plan. They are the worst. They seem to have no concern whatsoever for the good of the environment or the community.
But ins’t that all Environmental non-profits? When I worked for MassPIRG, I used to think that it was all about saving the planet and bringing clean water to the masses. Until I found out how much the former COO took in for a yearly salary.
https://www.mwra.com/02org/html/court.htm
An Everett soccer stadium would rarely compete for concerts with TD Garden. Most TD Garden concerts are in the colder months when it would not be desirable to be outside for hours at night. Summer concerts in the 17,000+ capacity range are usually held at Fenway, Great Woods (yes that's its name forever), Gillette etc. I don't see any Everett soccer specific stadium poaching more than a handful of concerts from the Garden if any. Fenway is a different story....
I didn't know they were involved with the harbor cleanup; that's certainly a huge accomplishment. But I couldn't see any environmental justification for killing the harbor plan. It would have no doubt made the whole area more resilient and environmentally friendly. We're now left with a flood-prone concrete parking garage. And my (hazy) recollection is they were funded by the harbor tower and aquarium folks, which struck me as a real conflict of interest.
I’m not sure if they were involved with the Harbor Plan or not. They might’ve been.
www.wgbh.org
From that article, it looks like state law said that certain waterfront planning needed to get approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. Boston tried to sidestep DEP and get approval from a different agency. CLF sued, saying that was illegal, and the State Supreme Court agreed unanimously. Anything that was already approved could go forward, but from then on the approval process would have to go through DEP, as the the law required.They're the ones who wrecked it with their lawsuit.
State’s highest court rejects Boston waterfront development plan
Supreme Judicial Court rules the approval process was illegal, clearing the way for a new plan.
Oh, noes…but…wait
I remember reading about his. But even if they had a valid procedural concern, why intervene on this particular project which would have raised the grade of all the surrounding land, replaced a concrete garage that promotes car use with a LEED certified tower, etc.? It's a very odd choice, particularly for environmentalists, and your post suggests other similar plans have gone unchallenged in the past. If memory serves correctly, they represented the harbor tower owners and the aquarium (they'd have no standing to participate on their own) which flooded social media with a pathetic campaign about "saving the harbor" and social justice. The whole thing stinks to me.
