April 7th CPPC: damage control mode with a soupçon of lawlessness

 

 Today, the CPPC was in damage control mode including their unofficial member, Goentzel (Friends of the BCP).  It was damage control done in a semi ignorant manner with some proposed law breaking thrown in.  Damage control dealt primarily with funding and with abutter outreach.

Funding.

Recapping: a) the MPO has no funds to take on new expensive projects such as the BCP, a Bike-Ped program; b) Bike and Ped programs are no longer a priority so any surplus funds most likely will be assigned to other programs;  c) this austere budget stretches as far as 2026; d) MPO is discussing policy changes that will make project funding estimate increases, cost overruns fall on the town AND the MPO share of the agreed upon budget may decrease each year with the amount shifted to the town.  Hence the more years a project runs, the higher the cost to the town.

Ignoring the reality of the MPO's budget woes, the CPPC proceeded to pump itself by: a) saying that bringing up the project score will make it more likely to get funded; b) denying that the chances of getting funded is practically nil up to at least 2026; c)  falsely claiming that the MPO had $14M un-programmed surplus this year; d) deciding to proceed with Phase 2 and bring it before the BOS (Board of Select ....errr ....people?).

25% design plan.  The CPPC will proceed with the 25% design plan; they are shooting for 2023 TIP funding.  To get funds for continuing (next step: eminent domain), they are lobbying U.S. Rep. K. Clark who has a $14M booty from the Fed. government's reinstated earmarks. As part of that lobbying, the CPPC sent its letter to Clark (draft letter).  Friedman conceded that all municipalities in Clark’s district are probably doing the same.  Town advised to choose only one project to push with Clark and Garvin chose BCP. Expectation is that Sen. Brownsberger and Rep. Rogers will lobby Clark on behalf of BCP.

Bowen proposed scheduling the MassDOT public hearing without delay.  (This fits with her previous demand that the CPPC should make the MassDOT and MBTA show up at meetings as the CPPC saw fit.)  Once again, someone had to inform Bowen that Belmont does not control MassDOT.  Someone else tried to make Bowen look less uninformed by saying that Bowen must have been referring to a public meeting to be held after the 25% submmittal that the CPPC has been discussing.  The problem with that is that no such public meeting has been discussed at any official CPPC meeting (I’ve attended them all).  If the CPPC has been discussing it outside of a public meeting, it would be illegal  (Clancy mentioned this in regard to another proposed discussion not to be held publicly). 

In another bizarre move, Bowen proposed that the committee approve the text of a letter yet to be written.  The intent may have been not to have the letter's content be known publicly. Someone pointed out that this would be rule-breaking also.

Outreach.

CPPC claims that the 25% design will be submitted within weeks.  At this late date, the CPPC - especially Stanton - is discussing ways of making itself available to “residents” such as abutters.  Last meeting the CPPC formed a subcommittee to work out this outreach.  Today, they cast about for ideas such as finally including a contact email on the CPPC’s webpage.  Currently, there are no phone numbers or email addresses of any sort listed in the CPPC’s webpage.  In addition, Leino proposed that the CPPC hold “office hours”.


Once again, the CPPC mentioned that Nitsch still has not answered public comments from July 2020 as promised.  Sadly, a delusional Goentzel crowed that Nitsch had but, members checked out the Nitsch website and pointed out that Nitsch posted only a brief update (Feb 2021).

Someone pointed out how Nitsch had failed to meet with abutters.  Clancy rose to Nitsch’s defense claiming that it was the abutters’ fault.  In reality, Nitsch has not responded to multiple abutters' requests for meeting or information.

From blaming abutters, Clancy moved to also blaming Covid, a theme that other members picked up for a while.

It was all sadly and oddly comical.

 

Popular posts from this blog

The Miracle of the Sketchily Scheduled Public Hearing

I've been on hiatus fron this blog after Nitsch's submission of the 25% design plan at the end of 2021.  All that time, I've continued to observe the CPPC meetings; they have been as interesting as watching paint dry. Nitsch's Michalak seemed to avoid the CPPC but, a few times, the CPPC succeeded in having Michalak show up to give a report of ... non-progress. This was confirmed by someone with knowledge of the project within the MBTA who complained to me of how Nitsch was not delivering the necessary engineering plan although 1 year had lapsed since the request made in 2022. Engineering plan vs design sketch  My MBTA interlocutor explained that an engineering plan is different from the design plan. The latter is a sketch; the former is plan that shows location of items and structures in the subsurface and surface of the project area.  The subsurface items include pipes and cables because you don't want to start digging - for example - to build a wall and then fin...
Read more

A Tangled Web

  Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive " Abutters have asked for the engineering plan for the 25% design submittal or what Stanton called the "revised" 25% design.  Since, on January 10, Michalak (PE or Project Engineer) announced that the Public Hearing had been scheduled then this revised plan had to exist at that date.  JS requested it from MassDOT Public Records on Februaru 23 and waited and waited.  Finally around March 14-15, JS received documents: the original, unrevised 25% design submission from November 2021, ROW papers, and the bridge worksheet with a submission date of January 24. (It's a tunnel or underpass but technically it becomes a bridge).   Note that it is the original 25% not the revised design so it still has a figure indicating that the tunnel will be "jacked".   The other fun part is that the bridge worksheet was submitted on January 24th not by December 21, 2023 as Michalak had said at the Dec...
Read more

Sept 15 - CPPC: A Fog of Words

Image
 Michalak and Clancy attended.   Michalak reported. 7 Channing Rd: Jammal scheduled a site meeting and, at the last minute, cancelled.  Clancy, Michalak will schedule again. Later on, Michalak said that submitting the 25% design did not depend on meeting Jammal: "that connection/spur is in the plan”.   All they wanted is Jammal’s approval of the spur/path planned for the side of the Chase building.  But Michalak conceded that the only thing he can see changing in the 25% are the access points such as the spur.  [My guess  is that they are likely to back down when it comes to the spur.] Soil borings 1.  Borings that required Keolis/MBTA were completed last week (week of Sept 6).   2.  Two other borings to be completed by the end of this week (week of Sept 13th).  These Pleasant St borings moved away from the ROW "to reduce cost and easier access”.* *Via FOIA request, I received Nitsch-GZA-Clancy emails .  This ROW issu...
Read more