Shelley's Globe rant was targeted at Whiskey Priest.
His argument is basically:
1.) Federal, state, and local taxpayers spent many billions cleaning up Boston Harbor.
2.) Developments along the harbor's edge are only occurring because of the cleanup.
3.) There was little access to the harbor before, but there was also little public interest in accessing it. [I think the point can be debated there was actually significant public access in 1972, when the Clean Water Act was enacted.]
4.) There is now more proximate public access to much of the harbor, up to the water's edge.
5.) However, the public is often confused about this access because the line between public property, publicly-accessible property, and private, non-public property is often blurred.
6.) To the extent that the public believes it doesn't have access, that is to the benefit of the private, water-side property owners (who would prefer the public stay away).
7.) And to the extent that a property-owner -- here's looking at you Cronin -- incorporates the public access into the commercial/residential aspects of the private property, that further confuses the public.
___________________
Point #7 is similar to criticisms of Rifleman's favorite Donald's early proposals, when a covered atrium lined with shops in the center of his property was categorized as "open space".
How much public access to the harbor will there be when most of the East Boston piers become residential?
