To the Editor:
Only one member of the Zoning Board of Appeals had the gumption to vote against the 100 Bridge Street proposal on August 15th. Known for his legal expertise and careful review of independent research, Michael Wise offered amendments to protect the community and potential 100 Bridge Street residents. The main one called for the full capping of the 8-acre site, not just 2 acres beneath the housing project. Only Carolyn Ivory supported him, but it was defeated.
Let the record show the facts have been obfuscated, creating a false sense of security among proponents. Here are some important unanswered questions on “the Site”:
SAFE? The site is toxic and remediation concerns are real. Quotes from filed Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) reports include the following:
The 2011 report: “The Site has been impacted by dioxins, pentachlorophenol (PCP), metals (arsenic, lead and thallium), and petroleum hydrocarbons.”
Further “the maximum depth of contamination in this area appears to be approximately 20 feet.” The CDC assertion is that contamination is only 12-18 inches deep.
The June 2016 report, “June 2014: Discovery of an underground storage tank (UST) while ripping the Site…” Uncovered conditions are not well known, thus assurances about safety with capping appear overstated.
Agents of the CDC have claimed that bioremediation reduced the toxins. However, the MA DEP’s 2015 letter says, “…all evidence to date points to the dilution and re-distribution of the dioxin contaminated soil across the site and at depth.”
Many reports state the groundwater is NOT remediable. “Given the existing impacts to groundwater at the Site and the absence of a feasible groundwater remedial alternative, MA DEP agreed that a Temporary Solution is acceptable for groundwater remedial alternative…a Permanent Solution is not attainable at this time….” Does this make it safe?
We are assured that the Site will be monitored if capped. However, what is the remedy should the toxicity rise to unsafe levels? Excavate? Would the CDC put their children there?
Drinking water. Reports further state, “The Site is located within a Zone II of the public water supply for the …Town of Sheffield, therefore groundwater at the Site is considered a source of drinking water. “ What’s our responsibility?
A public letter boasts of CDC’s track record. But what is their experience on brownfields? None that I can see.
At the same time, CDC elaborates on its “Net Zero” plans and providing green buildings. But a major problem is BELOW ground, more than above ground. No amount of green deflection will answer health and safety issues.
FUNDING: The CDC has spent most of its money. In recent discussions with the CDC, it has already spent $1.45M of its $2M Mass Development Brownfields grant (2007) on salaries, fees and failed bio-remediation. It will spend all of our Town’s CPA allocation, but there is no guarantee any affordable housing will result from these experiments. Call for action hasn’t resulted in affordable housing at the Site in the last 10 years, and it is questionable whether it will in the near future.
ALTERNATIVES: There are other options. Should we “trust” that applying valuable affordable housing tax credits on 100 Bridge will yield desired housing results? Why is the CDC squeezing the economics of the affordable housing site so that commercial developers can “make enough money” on the remaining 6 acres? Isn’t that how the Flag Rock project devolved into a shamefully underfunded and troubled housing project? Where is the State Housing Authority on fixing those maladies?
MASTER PLAN: The Master Plan says Great Barrington contains 30,000 acres of which 5,400 acres are unrestricted, theoretically buildable land. Housing need not be a choice between a brownfield or “The Hill.”
PUBLIC MONIES. In the opinion of signatories protesting the current proposal, let us spend NO additional public dollars until a formal proposal has been presented and approved by the DEP. Full remediation is critical to the community.
DEMOCRACY. The public needs to be treated respectfully. We should be heard in a true and fair open hearing, without “home court advantage” where 90 percent of the time is given to the applicant.
Hearings should be posted for each continuance, even if on the town website. Posted agendas have been misleading. Input should include objective third parties, not paid agents of proposers. How else will this Town achieve objective decision making?
We don’t need more experimentation and stakeholder opinions; we need affordable housing.
Sharon Gregory
Great Barrington
