June 2 - CPPC: Crisis management
A great part of the meeting dealt with crisis management or what Stanton referred to as the "political stage".
1. Problem: Selectman Epstein.
2. Problem: French’s Amendment.
The amendment calls for the $200K for appraisals to be removed from the CPA appropriations. Leino said that the amendment was a “blunt force instrument” by French. He did clarify that French is not “pushing back against the DCR easement but against the expanded ROW” (Roberts and others have been falsely stating that). Stanton talked about “trade offs”, finding a “middle ground” and [most worryingly in terms of safety] to ask Michalak to “push back on the MBTA” about their requirements for the path as it goes by F-M.
Laughing at first as he spoke, Stanton made a puzzling statement:
If the ties are replaced once every thirty years or something and there is equipment, I know there is equipment on the Fitchburg line that is almost 100 years old . If it is 30, 40 years I think we should not build something that is easy to take down because that machine might come any day, we should be willing to take down a more permanent, to do something that's more costly and in 35 years when that needs to be done again.
[Although it is true that ties last several decades, Keolis seems to replace them in a rotating basis so every few years, a track section is revisited. In addition, if Stanton foresees a problem removing the 8' long ties, how close to the tracks does he want the path?! Is he even considering the width of the train?!]
“a very important point here is that this appropriation is for the study of the appropriate negotiations to be had with landowners about rights of way and so this money actually benefits the folks who we'll be interacting with because we will do so in a form(ed) way where alternatives are considered, where we have done a due diligence aroundand do we really really really really need any of these rights of way acquisitions? and of course anything that happens is going to be negotiated with the landowners. I want to make the point this appropriation is to help make things better for the landowners who will be entering negotiations with the town and the town is going to be doing the right thing by these landowners."
Crisis management actions.
Friedman wants to put out the message that “we are not out to put anyone out of business”; talk to TMMs. Leino explained how he can not talk during TM unless he is asked to do so by a TMM. It turns out that the CPPC members are all (?) TMMs so we can assume that they will have Leino recognized so that he may speak.
Stanton went over an email that he had prepared to send to TMMs presenting the CPPC’s [misinformed] viewpoint. Example: although Leino stated in the CPA application that ~40 homes would be impacted now they say that “not that many homeowners will be impacted".
Miscellaneous.
TMM Pargoli (member of the public) brought out the south side issue and the CPPC answered with the old ditty that it was rejected due to safety issues. She asked about budget issues and was basically shut down. I raised my hand and pointed out that Jody Ray was also concerned about the safety of crossing from the north side and that the budget had escalated to $20M. (Actually, the $20M figure does not include the $4M that - Michalak said - would cost to light the entire path's length). Stanton declared that the projected cost of $20M was “a made up figure”.
And to settle the issue of lighting along the length of the path, this comes from Nitsch's Conceptual Design report (red markings are mine):