The Leino and Roberts Show - May 31

 

 YouTube Video of meeting.

Joint P4/P8 information meeting was held last night in preparation for Wed.’s TM.  Article 12 (CPA $200K for BCP eminent domain appraisals) was presented by Leino (starts ~45’ in) and discussed.

Thanks to Allison Lenk and Steven Rosales who insistently questioned Leino and also thanks to Lisa Pargoli for speaking up.  

Leino presented the CPA’s $200K appraisal request.  There was misinformation galore in his presentation.  I don’t have time to deal with all of the misinformation but here’s some fact checking.

1. Leino said workers only need to “walk” through our properties although at another point a slide shows workers and “equipment”.  Whenever the subject of temp. easements comes up, Leino talks about workers “traversing” our properties and I mentally see a tidy line of workers with shovel at their shoulder tip-toeing by my windows.   The reality is that the "traversing" will be done in trucks and that a port-a-potty may end up adorning the construction area, formerly my backyard. 

2.  Leino said it was not until Nitsch did the survey that the CPPC was “surprised" to find that Jammal’s property line (currently Chase Bank rents it) extends to the RR tracks.  I was the one surprised since Oliver GIS mapping unequivocally shows  that very fact and has done so for years.  

3. Leino said that the town can expect to pay $15-20/ sq foot of land.  It may be true for taking land next to a sidewalk but here we are talking of what MassDOT refers to as “real property” i.e. the land and what sits on the land impacted.  Let’s see how much the town pays for paved backyards and in-ground swimming pools.

4.  Leino and Roberts seem to studiously steer clear of talking about the rear of the French-Mahoney property.  F-M own land several hundred feet  in back of the building and the BCF strip ends on the F-M property line.  The only way that the BCP can be accommodated considering MBTA's buffer demands is for the town to take a bit of that F-M land.  On the front of the property, more than just the DCR ROW is at play.

5. Roberts throws out the very offensive “not in my own backyard” in order to minimize and denigrate our very real concerns about the BCP’s impact on our homes.  A low blow.

6.  Leino says that they are hopeful to receive MPO funding next year while, as you know, there is no hope of $$ until at least 2026.  

7.  Measurements, measurements.  MBTA asks for 14’ between stone ballasts and the tunnel mouth.  The MBTA also said it would like ~20’ as a MBTA ROW for most of the path but it willing to be flexible about it (pers. comm. May 2021). Nitsch  claims the MBTA requested 22-24’. But Leino just talks of 14'.

 8.  Leino avoids the answer to the emergency vehicle question and does not mention that the Fire Dept. wants to be able to do 3-point turns which for a fire truck would require a 45’ radius.   Roberts mentions that sidewalks and streets are dangerous but fails to mention that streets+sidewalks are open and easily accessible in an emergency unlike the BCP which will be a narrow corridor sandwiched between homes and RR.

9.  Pare proposed a 16’ (meandering) path because that is what people requested.   To the CPPC’s seeming distress, MassDOT in the form of Michael Trepanier reduced it to a 12’ width or so it was reported at the time.  Perhaps to cut asphalt expense but also to move the path further from abutters.  The point is that it was not a Nitsch decision.

So life continues ... fact checking away.